Atrophic Maxilla, Soft Tissue Defect, Soft Tissue Healing, Zygomatic Implants
Conditions
Keywords
ZAGA, Zygomatic Implants, Buccal Fat Pad, BFP, Palatal Rotation Graft, PRG, Scarf Graft, Atrophic Maxilla, Soft tissue Recession, Dehiscence, RCT, Zygoma, Implant
Brief summary
Over the past 20 years, the demand for oral rehabilitation among edentulous patients has steadily increased. Traditionally, individuals with edentulous maxillae were treated using removable complete dentures. However, these often result in poor patient satisfaction due to instability and functional limitations. Dental rehabilitation with implants in the maxillary arch presents unique challenges, primarily due to the anatomical complexity of the maxilla and the need for adequate residual ridge dimensions for successful implant placement. Following the extraction of maxillary teeth, patients experience rapid and progressive alveolar bone loss in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. This resorption is largely attributed to the absence of teeth and periodontal ligament fibers support, which are essential for transmitting mechanical forces that maintain bone homeostasis. In addition, the loss of maxillary molars accelerates pneumatization/expansion of the maxillary sinus, further reducing available bone volume. Contributing factors such as ill-fitting dentures and systemic health conditions can exacerbate this process, complicating implant placement even further. To overcome these limitations, oral and maxillofacial surgeons have developed a range of advanced techniques, including tilted implants, sinus floor elevation, short implants, pterygoid implants, and most notably, zygomatic implants. Zygomatic implants bypass the atrophic alveolar ridge entirely by anchoring into the dense zygomatic bone, offering a reliable solution for patients with severely resorbed maxillae who are not candidates for conventional implant therapy.
Detailed description
The study aims to compare two different soft tissue augmentation techniques-buccal fat pad graft and palatal rotation scarf graft-to determine which method is more effective in enhancing soft tissue volume, improving tissue stability, and preventing dehiscence around zygomatic implants. Both grafts have shown promise in separate clinical applications, but this head-to-head comparison it will help in identifying the more optimal and predictable graft technique, the research aims to improve clinical outcomes, reduce complications, and enhance the long-term success of zygomatic implants in challenging clinical scenarios.
Interventions
PROCEDUREBuccal Fat Pad
BFP has a long successful history in oral surgery for its use in closure of Oroantral communication and taking advantage of the fact that it contains progenitor stem cells showing similar phenotype with (ASC) adipose-derived stem cells characteristics, which can similarly differentiate into the chondrogenic, adipogenic, or osteogenic lineage. Making them an invaluable reservoir for tissue engineering.
PROCEDUREPalatal Rotation Scarf Graft
This technique uses tissue from the palatal area, which has a rich blood supply placed around the neck of the zygomatic implant aiming to protect the mucosal tissues buccal to the exteriorized implants from capillary compression and subsequent soft tissue recession. The palatal rotation scarf graft has been proven to provide a robust, resilient soft tissue flap with good potential for long-term stability and esthetic outcomes around implants.
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Each patient will be given a code by the researcher and the observers will be blind to which group this case belong. Patients, radiographic outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded.
Intervention model description
1. Superiority test. 2. Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. 3. Parallel group study. 4. Allocation Ratio 1:1.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Patient of age 18 years or more, who can understand and sign an informed consent. 2. Patients with severely atrophic edentulous upper arch (Cawood & Howell class IV, V, VI) that could not be restored by standard axial implants without augmentation. 3. Patients with severely atrophic edentulous upper arch (Bedrossian classification inadequate bone in zones II or III or all three zones) that could not be restored by standard axial implants without augmentation. 4. Good systemic health (ASA score I-II) 5. Highly motivated patients with good compliance to oral hygiene habits.
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients with cardiovascular disease or pulmonary disease or medical systemic condition that does not permit the surgical procedure under general anesthesia (ASA III, IV, V and VI). 2. Patients with conditions contraindicating implant placement (e.g.: radiation to the head and neck, intra-venous bisphosphonates, uncontrolled Diabetes mellitus). 3. Heavy smokers. (\> 20 cigarettes daily) 4. Patient with psychiatric problems, severe bruxism, or other parafunctional habits. 5. Acute maxillary sinus infection or untreated maxillary sinus cyst. 6. Malignancy or pathology in Maxilla or Zygoma.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Peri-implant Soft-Tissue Recessions (PSTR), Condition & Quality | 6 months | Incidence of dehiscence and peri-implantitis based on clinical examination, reference photographs obtained, signs of infection, keratinized soft tissue thickness using periodontal probe. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Implant Survival Rate | 6 months | ORIS Success Criteria of Zygomatic Implants |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
Primary ContactKhaled M Allam, DDS
Outcome results
None listed