dc.contributor.author | GARİP, HASAN | |
dc.contributor.author | VAROL, ALTAN | |
dc.contributor.author | Aydil, Baris Altug | |
dc.contributor.author | Akbas, Mert | |
dc.contributor.author | DERGİN, GÜHAN | |
dc.contributor.author | Yalcin, Mustafa | |
dc.contributor.author | CAN, SERHAT | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-03-06T10:21:59Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-03-06T10:21:59Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Yalcin 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.issn | 0882-2786 | |
dc.identifier.other | av_e9fa93d4-17b3-446f-bc5e-b93dd27c8f2a | |
dc.identifier.other | vv_1032021 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/153707 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8196 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: 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.iso | eng | |
dc.subject | Klinik Tıp (MED) | |
dc.subject | Sağlık Bilimleri | |
dc.subject | DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP | |
dc.subject | Klinik Tıp | |
dc.subject | Tıp | |
dc.subject | Diş Hekimliği | |
dc.title | Retrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation | |
dc.type | Makale | |
dc.relation.journal | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS | |
dc.contributor.department | Gaziantep Üniversitesi , , | |
dc.identifier.volume | 35 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 750 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 756 | |
dc.contributor.firstauthorID | 2284245 | |