Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37405545›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2023

Long-term treatment outcomes with zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matthew Brennand Roper, Arjan Vissink, Tom Dudding, Alex Pollard, Barzi Gareb, Chantal Malevez, Thomas Balshi, Lawrence Brecht, Vinay Kumar, Yiqun Wu and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Matthew Brennand RoperDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston Foundation Trust, Bristol Dental Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK. mbr@brennandroper.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5545-4518
Arjan VissinkDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universtitair Medisch Centrum Gronigen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Tom DuddingDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston Foundation Trust, Bristol Dental Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK.
Alex PollardDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston Foundation Trust, Bristol Dental Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK.
Barzi GarebDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universtitair Medisch Centrum Gronigen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Chantal MalevezDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinique Saint-Jean, Brussels, Belgium.
Thomas BalshiPI Dental Center, Fort Washington, USA.
Lawrence BrechtDivision of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, NYC College of Dentistry, New York City, NY, USA.
Vinay KumarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Yiqun WuDepartment of Oral Implantology, Second Dental Center, Ninth People's Hospital Affiliated with Shanghai Jaio Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ronald JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Dialyse Centrum Groningen · NLUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBClinique Saint Jean · BEInstitute for Facial Esthetics · USShanghai Ninth People's Hospital · CNUniversity Of Bristol Dental Hospital · GBUniversity of Zurich · CHUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the long-term survival rates of zygomatic implants (ZI). ZI success, prostheses survival and success, sinus pathology and patient reported outcomes were also investigated.

methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Embase and OvidMedline databases were searched alongside the grey literature. The systematic review was recorded in PROSPERO (CRD42022358024). Studies reporting titanium/titanium alloy ZI survival data, ZI-supported prosthesis data, ZIs directly compared to any other implant therapy including grafted sites, a minimum follow-up time of 3 years and a minimum number of 10 patients were included. All study designs were considered if they met the inclusion criteria. Studies not involving ZIs, ZIs not made from titanium/titanium alloy, a follow-up time of < 3 years or < 10 patients, animal studies and in vitro studies were excluded. Long-term follow-up has not been defined in the literature. A minimum of 3 years follow-up was considered acceptable to capture survival after initial healing, alongside in-function prosthesis data via delayed or immediate load protocols. ZI success, was predominantly defined as ZI survival without biological or neurological complications. Meta-analyses were performed for ZI survival, ZI failure incidence, ZI success, loading protocol, prosthesis survival, and prevalence of sinusitis using random effects models. Descriptive analysis was used for ZI success, prosthesis success and patient reported outcome measures.

resultsFive hundred and seventy-four titles were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies included 1349 ZIs in 623 patients. Mean follow-up period was 75.4 months (range 36-141.6). The mean survival of ZIs was 96.2% [95% CI: 93.8; 97.7] at 6 years. Mean survival for delayed loading was 95% [95% CI: 91.7; 97.1] and 98.1% [95% CI: 96.2; 99.0] for immediate loading (p = 0.03). Annual incidence rate of ZI failure was 0.7% [95% CI 0.4; 1.0]. Mean ZI success was 95.7% [95% CI 87.8; 98.6]. Mean prosthesis survival was 94% [95% CI 88.6; 96.9]. Sinusitis prevalence was 14.2% [95% CI 8.8; 22.0] at 5 years. Patients' reported increased satisfaction with ZIs.

conclusionsZIs have long-term survival comparable to conventional implants. Immediate loading showed a statistically significant increase in survival over delayed loading. Prosthesis survival was similar to that of prostheses supported by conventional implants, with similar complications. Sinusitis was the most frequently encountered biological complication. Patients reported improved outcome measures with ZI use.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsAlloysHumansProsthesis FailureTitaniumTreatment OutcomeAlloysDental ImplantsTitaniumAtrophic maxillaImplantPatient reported outcomeRehabilitationSinusitisSurvivalZygoma

Identifiers

PMID37405545
PMCPMC10322814
OpenAlexW4383186361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.