ReviewJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Graftless Solutions for Rehabilitation of Atrophied Maxilla - Zygomatic Versus Subperiosteal Implants - A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Biomechanical comparison of titanium and Y-TZP subperiosteal implants in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Treatment of Severe Atrophy with Juxta-Osseous Implants: A Systematic Review and Case Report.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae is challenging when graft-based techniques are unsuitable. This review compares zygomatic and subperiosteal implants for clinical outcomes, complications, and procedural considerations. Methods: A systematic search in major databases identified studies on zygomatic and subperiosteal implants, analyzing survival rates, complications, and patient satisfaction. Results: Zygomatic implants (623 patients) showed a 96.1% survival rate, with sinusitis as a common complication. Subperiosteal implants (257 patients) had a 97.8% short-term survival rate, with soft tissue dehiscence as the main issue. CAD/CAM improved subperiosteal implant outcomes. Conclusions: Both implants are effective, with zygomatic implants offering established long-term success and subperiosteal implants emerging as a customizable alternative. Further studies are needed for validation.
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.