Cochrane · intervention · CD004151

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

Esposito, M, Worthington, HV · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library

Oral Health Implants and prosthodontics3 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

as reported

No studies 7 · 100%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

Element	Planned (methods)	Found (results)
Population	Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including patients subjected to cancer ablation surgery and irradiation therapy); partially or totally edentulous	No eligible studies identified
Intervention	Zygomatic implants with or without bone grafts	No eligible studies identified
Comparison	Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae	No eligible studies identified
Outcomes	Prosthesis could not be placed or loss of prosthesis secondary to implant failure; Implant failures (mobile implants, removal of stable implants, implant fractures, implants left 'sleeping' due to wrong alignment); Complications; Patient satisfaction and, when possible, preference; Cost-effectiveness	No eligible studies identified
Study designs	Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel group or split-mouth design	No eligible studies identified
Timing	Follow-up of at least one year in function	No eligible studies identified

Search date: 2013-06. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via OVID; EMBASE via OVID

Questions and results

Current version only

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Population: Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including patients subjected to cancer ablation surgery and irradiation therapy); partially or totally edentulous

CD004151.PUB3 (current) · 5 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Patient satisfaction (and, when possible, preference) At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies
Cost-effectiveness At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies
Complications At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies
Prosthesis failure (prosthesis could not be placed or loss of prosthesis secondary to implant failure) At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Summary of findings 'Zygomatic implants versus conventional implants'; Prosthesis failure: Assumed risk (conventional) Low risk population 10 per 1000, High risk population 100 per 1000; Corresponding risk (zygomatic)…	0 studies	No studies
Implant failure (mobile implants, removal of stable implants due to progressive marginal bone loss or infection, implant fractures) At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants with bone grafts (as a partial alternative to bone augmentation; some augmentation still required in the frontal maxilla) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Population: Patients with a severely atrophic maxilla for whom some bone augmentation is still required in the frontal portion of the maxilla; partially or totally edentulous

CD004151.PUB3 (current) · 1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants for retaining a maxillary obturator vs Non-implant retained obturators, local and regional flaps, or microvascular free flaps

Population: Patients requiring maxillary reconstruction after partial or total maxillectomy (cancer patients)

CD004151.PUB3 (current) · 1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR At least 1 year in function same question in other reviews	Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Population: Patients with an atrophic maxilla that cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including patients subjected to cancer ablation surgery and irradiation therapy); partially or totally edentulous

CD004151.PUB2 · 5 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Side effects At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies
Implant failure (mobile implants, removal of stable implants due to progressive marginal bone loss or infection, implant fractures) At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies
Patient satisfaction (and, if possible, preference) At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies
Prosthesis failure (prosthesis could not be placed or loss of prosthesis secondary to implant failure) At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies
Cost effectiveness At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants with bone grafts (as a partial alternative to bone augmentation; some augmentation still required in the frontal maxilla) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Population: Patients with a severely atrophic maxilla for whom some bone augmentation is still required in the frontal portion of the maxilla; partially or totally edentulous

CD004151.PUB2 · 1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants for retaining a maxillary obturator vs Non-implant retained obturators, local and regional flaps, or microvascular free flaps

Population: Patients requiring maxillary reconstruction after partial or total maxillectomy (cancer patients)

CD004151.PUB2 · 1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Outcome NR At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no published or ongoing randomised controlled clinical trials or controlled clinical trials were identified.	0 studies	No studies

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants with bone grafts or other procedures for bone augmentation such as guided bone regeneration (GBR)

Population: Patients with a maxilla that cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including patients subjected to cancer ablation surgery and irradiation therapy); partially or totally edentulous

CD004151 · 5 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Patient satisfaction At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no randomised controlled clinical trial was identified.	0 studies	No studies
Side effects At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no randomised controlled clinical trial was identified.	0 studies	No studies
Implant failure (mobile implants, removal of stable implants due to progressive marginal bone loss or infection, implant fractures) At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no randomised controlled clinical trial was identified.	0 studies	No studies
Cost effectiveness At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no randomised controlled clinical trial was identified.	0 studies	No studies
Prosthesis failure (prosthesis could not be placed or loss of prosthesis secondary to implant failure) At least 1 year follow-up	Results (Effects of interventions): no randomised controlled clinical trial was identified.	0 studies	No studies