ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the zygomatic bone prior to the quad zygoma surgery: virtual implant placement study on cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Risk and Medico-Legal Implications in Zygomatic Implant Rehabilitation: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Diagnostics (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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objectives of our study were to evaluate zygomatic implants placed according to quad zygoma protocol in the severely absorbed maxilla on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans using virtual implant placement program and to compare the variables according to gender. The secondary objectives were to examine the intra and extra-sinus pathways of anterior and posterior implants. MATERIALS AND
methods56 zygomatic bones from 28 patients were examined using CBCT scans. A total of 112 zygomatic implants were evaluated to zygomatic bone-implant contact (zBIC) lenght, the relationship zygomatic implants between the maxillary sinus and zygomaticofacial foramen (ZFF) were compared and analyzed by gender on virtually placed anterior and posterior implants on the three-dimensional reconstruction images.
resultsThe average zBICs length in males was found to be 11.77 ± 3.47 mm, in females 11.23 ± 2.61 mm. Although the zBIC lenghts of anterior implants were reported to be higher than those of posterior implants, no significant differences were found, respectively (p > 0.05). Among the anterior and posterior zygomatic implants classified according to ZAGA classification, ZAGA 3 (%55,3) and ZAGA 4 (%50) were most common reported, respectively. ZFF contact was significantly higher in implants with an anterior exit profile (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between gender-related parameters that were investigated (p > 0.05).
conclusionBIC length was not affected by gender or implant position. Most of the zygomatic implants were placed extrasinus trajectory. Anteriorly placed zygomatic implants presented high risk for ZFF contact.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.