萎缩性上颌骨修复的无移植解决方案——颧骨种植体与骨膜下种植体对比——一项系统评价
Graftless Solutions for Rehabilitation of Atrophied Maxilla - Zygomatic Versus Subperiosteal Implants - A Systematic Review.
作者信息
Sudhir M V S, Prasad Rajendra B, Krothapalli Niranjani, Kumar Perukasrujan
机构信息
Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Continuum Oral Health Inc, Framingham, Massachusetts, United States.
Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, S Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India.
出版信息
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S207-S210. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1802_24. Epub 2025 Mar 6.
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.
目的
当基于植骨的技术不适用时，严重萎缩上颌骨的修复具有挑战性。本综述比较了颧骨种植体和骨膜下种植体的临床结果、并发症及操作注意事项。
方法
在主要数据库中进行系统检索，确定关于颧骨种植体和骨膜下种植体的研究，分析其存活率、并发症及患者满意度。
结果
颧骨种植体（623例患者）的存活率为96.1%，鼻窦炎是常见并发症。骨膜下种植体（257例患者）的短期存活率为97.8%，主要问题是软组织裂开。计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）改善了骨膜下种植体的效果。
结论
两种种植体均有效，颧骨种植体已取得长期成功，骨膜下种植体则成为一种可定制的替代方案。尚需进一步研究进行验证。
Zotero 插件