ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2022
Survival of conventional dental implants in the edentulous atrophic maxilla in combination with zygomatic implants: a 20-year retrospective study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of zygomatic implants using the externalized technique in the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. A systematic review with meta-analysis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025Pooled it
- How far can we go? A 20-year meta-analysis of dental implant survival rates.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Indications for zygomatic implants: a systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Dental Implant with Porous Structure and Anchorage: Design and Bench Testing in a Calf Rib Model Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Rehabilitation of Partially Edentulous Maxilla With Unilateral Zygomatic Implants: A Retrospective Study up to 23 Years Follow-Up.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- All-on-4 Hybrid with Extra-Long Transnasal Implants: Descriptions of the Technique and Short-Term Outcomes in Three Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImplant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation in the resorbed maxilla is a great challenge. The aim of this study was to determine the survival rate of conventional anterior implants placed in combination with zygomatic implants according to the Brånemark technique, and to identify risk factors for implant failure.
methodsWe collected data retrospectively from 72 consecutive patients who received treatment from 1998 to 2018 at our center, according to Brånemark's original technique. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess survival rate, and a survival regression model was used with the patient as the random factor, applying the Weibull distribution.
resultsA total of 236 maxillary anterior implants were included, with a mean follow-up of 12.1 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed overall cumulative survival rates of 95.3% at 1 year, 94.8% at 2 years, 93.0% at 5 years, 90.5% at 10 years, 81.6% at 15 years, and 67.7% at 20 years. Survival regression showed an association between bruxism and implant failure as well as implants bearing an overdenture. Implants with length ≤ 10 mm had a significantly lower survival time. No significant association was found between the number of anterior implants and survival rate.
conclusionsWe found acceptable long-term anterior conventional implant survival. Significant risk factors for failure were bruxism, overdentures, and implants shorter than 10 mm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.