SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2025
Effectiveness of zygomatic implants using the externalized technique in the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe objective of this work is to identify the effectiveness and summarize the scientific evidence of zygomatic implants using the externalized technique, as well as to evaluate the possible complications associated with this technique. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022330060) and the searches were carried out in 6 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar), by two researchers individually. The aggregated data were subjected to statistical analysis using the MedCalc program for the variables: success rate and frequency of complications, using a 95% confidence interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool.
results912 articles were found in the initial search and 15 of them were included in this systematic review. A total of 1555 zygomatic implants and 1865 conventional implants were part of the study, with an overall success rate of 96.7% for zygomatic implants and 97.9% for conventional implants. There was no statistically significant difference between the survival of zygomatic implants using the externalized technique when compared with conventional implants (p=0.015). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies (p=0.89, I²=0%). Regarding complications, the most prevalent were sinusitis, which showed a proportion of 3.028% (CI95% = 1.053, 5.980%) and infections, which showed a proportion of 1.56% (CI95% = 0.358, 3.590%). Only three articles included presented a low risk of bias.
conclusionsBased on the present systematic review and with limited evidence, the use of zygomatic implants using the externalized technique proved to have a high implant success rate and few associated complications for the treatment of atrophic maxillae.
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.