ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2024
Comparative Evaluation of Sinus Complication and Survival Rates of Quad Zygoma versus Bizygoma in Combination with two Regular Implants in Atrophic Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus Report of Group 2 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Zygomatic, Standard-Length, and Short Implant-Supported Prostheses.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Bone Resorption Assessment Following Zygomatic Implants Surgery over 10 Years of Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To systematically review existing scientific literature to determine, compare and evaluate the sinus complication and survival rates of quad zygoma against two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants in atrophic maxilla in adults. Methods: Review was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines and registered in PROSPERO-CRD42023392721 Electronic databases like PubMed, Google scholar and EBSCO host were searched from 2000 to December 2022 for studies reporting treatment of Atrophic maxilla with either quad zygoma or two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants. Quality assessment was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCT). The risk of bias summary graph and risk of bias summary applicability concern was plotted using RevMan software version 5.3. The odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as summary statistic measure with random effect model and Results: Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only nine studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through the odds ratio 0.59 signifies that the quad zygomatic implants on an average has 0.59 (0.18-1.93) times or odds of developing sinus complications while the SMD signifies that better survival rate (SR) on an average is 0.35 (- 0.61 to 1.30) times more by two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants as compared to quad zygomatic implants ( Conclusion: Two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants provides better survival rate and less sinus complications compared to quad zygoma in atrophic maxilla. Despite the high SR observed, there is a need to conduct more randomized controlled clinical trials to examine their efficacy in comparison with other techniques.
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.