Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGARİP, HASAN
dc.contributor.authorVAROL, ALTAN
dc.contributor.authorAydil, Baris Altug
dc.contributor.authorAkbas, Mert
dc.contributor.authorDERGİN, GÜHAN
dc.contributor.authorYalcin, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorCAN, SERHAT
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-06T10:21:59Z
dc.date.available2021-03-06T10:21:59Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationYalcin M., CAN S., Akbas M., DERGİN G., GARİP H., Aydil B. A. , VAROL A., "Retrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, cilt.35, ss.750-756, 2020
dc.identifier.issn0882-2786
dc.identifier.otherav_e9fa93d4-17b3-446f-bc5e-b93dd27c8f2a
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/153707
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8196
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate 141 zygomatic implants for the reconstruction of severely atrophic maxillae. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective case series study, zygomatic implants were placed under general anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ASA I or ASA II, age older than 18 years, inadequate bone for restoration with conventional implants, alternative augmentation procedures considered either inappropriate or contraindicated, absence of a medical condition related to implant failure, and providing written consent. Zygomatic implants used in the study consisted of three different brands: NobelZygoma, Southern Implants System, and Implantswiss. Results: The study included 45 patients, in whom 141 zygomatic implants were placed. The mean age of the patients was 51.76 (range: 23 to 72) years. Three patients were rehabilitated with removable prostheses, 19 patients with fixed prostheses, and 23 patients with hybrid prostheses. The overall complication rate was 5.67% (two zygomatic implants developed infection [1.4%], one zygomatic implant developed peri-implantitis [0.7%], three zygomatic implants developed sinusitis [2.1%], and two zygomatic implants showed unsuccessful prosthetic rehabilitation [1.4%]). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 36 months. Conclusion: Clinical complications of zygomatic implants are acceptable, and their survival rates are similar to those of endosteal implants. Zygomatic implants can contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectDİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectDiş Hekimliği
dc.titleRetrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
dc.contributor.departmentGaziantep Üniversitesi , ,
dc.identifier.volume35
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.startpage750
dc.identifier.endpage756
dc.contributor.firstauthorID2284245


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster