computer-aided rehabilitation of maxillary oncological

Q11

Q4

Q2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

29

30

31

3233

34

35

36

37

38

39

4041

42

43

44

45

46

47

4849

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY AND RECONSTRUCTION

57

Rec

De

Bol

Ma

58

59

60

61

62

63

6465

Computer-Aided Rehabilitation of MaxillaryOncological Defects Using ZygomaticImplants: A Defect-Based Classification

eived

partme

ogna, I

*---

y---

z---

x---

kFull PrDrs Pel

Addres

xillofac

66

67

68

Gerardo Pellegrino, DDS,* Achille Tarsitano, MD,y Francesco Basile, DDS,zAngelo Pizzigallo, MD,x and Claudio Marchetti, MD, DDSk

69

70

71

7273

74

75

76

77

78

79

8081

82

Purpose: A complete maxillectomy for neoplastic lesions leads to serious oral dysfunction. Zygomatic

implants for fixed bridge support are considered beneficial for maxillary defects after tumor resection.

Materials andMethods: This clinical study examined the management of patients with different maxil-

lary defect types who underwent delayed rehabilitation using zygomatic implants and immediate pros-thetic loading. Virtual preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation were performed in all cases.

Results: Five patients were treated with this newmethod. The total number of zygomatic implants posi-tioned was 17. Four patients had immediate loading of a fixed prosthesis and 1 had delayed loading. One

patient had 1 failed implant.

Conclusion: The use of preoperative virtual surgical planning and an intraoperative navigation system

allows the surgeon to achieve safer implant positioning in a complex anatomic site. A systematic bone

defect classification was created and a specific treatment protocol is proposed for each type of defect.

� 2015 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

J Oral Maxillofac Surg -:1.e1-1.e11, 2015
83
84

85

86

87

8889

90

91

92

93

94

95

9697

98

99

100

Oncologic bone resection for neoplastic lesions

involving the maxilla leads to serious oral dysfunction

with respect to speaking, swallowing, chewing, and

quality of life.1 Defect classification systems enable cli-

nicians to choose the type of rehabilitation and deter-

mine a functional prognosis.1 Since the publication ofthe study by Ohngren,2 many classification schemes

have been proposed to describe the anatomic bound-

aries of maxillectomy defects.1-3

A complete maxillectomy produces complex de-

fects of the alveolar bone, palate, paranasal sinuses,

and orbital floor.4 Loss of these anatomic structures

has relevant functional and esthetic consequences.

Reconstruction of this region should 1) preventany communication between the oral cavity and

the nasopharynx, 2) reconstruct the palatal surface,

from the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Division,

nt of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of

taly.

.

.

.

.

ofessor.

legrino and Tarsitano contributed equally to this research.

s correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Tarsitano:

ial Surgery Unit, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Department

1.e1

FLA 5.4.0 DTD � YJOMS56955_proof � 22

and 3) achieve facial symmetry and good facial

morphology.5

Several surgical reconstruction options exist,

including nonvascularized grafts, local flaps, and

microsurgical reconstruction with bone or soft tis-

sues.6 However, in many cases, dental implants havebeen used to obtain functional restoration throughme-

chanical retention of dental prostheses.7

Implant placement and subsequent prosthetic reha-

bilitation are often difficult to obtain after maxillec-

tomy because of a lack of bone alveolar tissue and

gingiva.7 Dental implants can be considered a viable

restorative option only when the basal maxillary

bone is preserved.8

Zygomatic implants are used to rehabilitate patients

with insufficient bone volume for ‘‘traditional’’ dental

of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum

University of Bologna, Via S Vitale 59, 40125 Bologna, Italy Q3;

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Received May 28 2015

Accepted August 31 2015

� 2015 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

0278-2391/15/01265-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.08.020

September 2015 � 8:11 pm � CE AH

101

102

103

104105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.08.020

web4C=FPO

1.e2 COMPUTER-AIDED MAXILLARY DEFECT REHABILITATION Q1

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176177

178

179

180

181

implants.7-13 These implants are inserted into the

zygomatic bone when alveolar bone is deficient after

maxillectomy.7,14,15 However, the application of

zygomatic implants in reconstructive surgery is often

associated with various problems, including

deficiencies of bone tissue and the presence of a

reconstructive soft tissue flap.7

In this clinical study, the authors examined the man-agement of patients with different maxillary defect

types who underwent delayed rehabilitation using

zygomatic implants and immediate prosthetic loading.

Clinical outcomes were assessed for implant failure

and prosthetic loading.

182

183

184185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200201

202

203

204

Rehabilitative Protocol

During the preparation of this article, it became

clear that none of the classifications addressed maxil-

lary restoration using zygomatic implants. A system-

atic bone defect classification was considered and a

specific treatment protocol is proposed for each type

of defect.Patientswere categorized into 3 classes according to

the site of the defect, the size of the defect, and resid-

ual masticatory function. Class I was defined as bilat-

eral maxillectomy. Class II was defined as unilateral

maxillectomy. In this class, 3 subclasses were identi-

fied according to the dental status of the unresected

side: Class IIA included patients with dentition or par-

tial dentition in the contralateral maxilla. Class IIBincluded patients without dentition in the residual

maxilla. Class IIC included patients without dentition

in the healthy maxilla with atrophied alveolar bone.

Class III included patients whose anterior maxilla (pre-

maxilla) was resected.

FIGURE 1. Class I defect restored using a total pr

Pellegrino et al. Computer-Aided Maxillary Defect Rehabilitation. J Oral


For patients in Class I, the treatment provided

4 zygomatic implants (2 for each zygoma; Fig 1). For

those in Class IIA, rehabilitation was achieved through

the insertion of 1 or 2 zygomatic implants on the re-

sected side and 1 zygomatic implant on the unresected

side. This implant was inserted in the contralateral

zygomatic bone with a trajectory passing above the

dental roots and below the nose (Fig 2). For those inClass IIB, 2 zygomatic implants were inserted on the

resected side and traditional implants were inserted

in the alveolar bone of the healthy maxilla (Fig 3). If

the healthy side did not have sufficient alveolar bone

height, then 2 zygomatic implants were inserted in

this site instead of traditional implants (Class IIC;

Fig 4).

For patients in Class III, the treatment provided 4zygomatic implants for the edentulous patient (Fig 5).

Otherwise, the use of standard implants or a dental-

supported prosthesis was contemplated.

Materials and Methods

From October 2013 through April 2014, 5 patientswith maxillary defects owing to resections of neo-

plasms were recruited. The hospital’s institutional re-

view board approved this study protocol. Written

informed consent was obtained from each patient

and the study protocol conformed to the ethical guide-

lines of the World Medical Association Declaration of

Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research

Involving Human Subjects.Patients were scheduled for treatment based on the

extent of resection and residual bone. Clinical proce-

dures were performed according to the specific treat-

ment protocol proposed for each type of defect. In

4 patients, zygomatic implant positioning was delayed

osthesis supported by 4 zygomatic implants.

Maxillofac Surg 2015.


205

206

207

208209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

web4C=FPO

FIGURE 2. Class IIA defect restored using a partial prosthesis supported by 2 zygomatic implants on the resected side and 1 zygomaticimplant positioned in the contralateral maxilla.

Pellegrino et al. Computer-Aided Maxillary Defect Rehabilitation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015.

web4C=FPO

PELLEGRINO ET AL 1.e3

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312313

314

315

316

with respect to themaxillary resection. All patients un-

derwent rehabilitation using zygomatic implants

(Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa). Zygomatic

implant length ranged from 27.5 to 52.5mm accordingto the residual anatomy after resection.

VIRTUAL PLANNING

Each patient in the study underwent preoperative

computed tomographic (CT) scanning of the maxillo-

facial region. Digital Imaging and Communications in

Medicine (DICOM) data extracted from the CT scan

were imported into simulation software (SimPlantO&O; Dentsply Implants, Leuven, Belgium) for prelim-

inary planning. This plan allowed the surgical team to

simulate implant placement on a 3-dimensional (3D)

FIGURE 3. Class IIB defect restored using a full-arch prosthesis supportemaxilla.



model. While considering theanatomic structures

and the bone resection performed, the surgical team

interactively simulated the position and the length of

the implant in each plane. Once the implant was posi-tioned, its angulation could be modified and its dimen-

sions adapted to obtain a better 3D position (Fig 6).

In 3 cases, an intraoperative navigation system was

used to control implant positioning. In 2 of these

cases, CT data were imported into the navigation sys-

tem software (ImplaNav, BresMedical, Ingleburn,

Australia). A dental-supported reference tool for the

passive tracking navigation system was used to con-nect the patient’s position with the navigation system

in real time. In 1 case, an active tracking navigation sys-

tem was used for the intraoperative navigation guide.

d by 2 zygomatic implants and standard implants in the unresected



317

318

319

320321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

web4C=FPO

FIGURE 4. Class IIC defect restored using a total prosthesis supported by 2 zygomatic implants on the resected side and standard zygomaticimplants in the atrophied contralateral maxilla.


web4C=FPO

1.e4 COMPUTER-AIDED MAXILLARY DEFECT REHABILITATION

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408409

410

411

412

413

414
In this case, an active tracker was placed on the cra-
nial skeleton.
415
416417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424425

426

427

428

429

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

A full-thickness flap was performed in all cases to

obtain zygomatic bone exposure. Implant drilling

was performed using a straight or angled handle. Thefixtures were placed with the handle at 30 rpm at a

maximum torque of 50 N-cm or manually.

Zygomatic implants were used when in contact

with the skin flap. This kind of zygomatic implant

has a machined surface rather than spires in the third

coronal portion of the fixture (Fig 7). Figure 8 shows

the design of the implant. Standard zygomatic im-

plants were inserted to maintain contact with theoral gingiva and mucosa.

FIGURE 5. Class III defect restored using a pros



In these cases in which implant placement was per-

formed under a navigation guide, during surgery, there

was constant visualization of the drill trajectory in the

3D-reconstructed CT image and in the sagittal, coro-

nal, and axial views (Fig 9).Deviation from the planned position was detected

immediately, and precise implant placement was

achieved. Postoperative radiographic evaluation

confirmed the placement and angulation of the

implant in the remaining zygomatic bone.

PROSTHETIC PROCEDURE

In 4 of the 5 cases, right or angled conical abutments

were mounted before suturing and not removed. At

the time of surgery after the suture pickup, transferswere positioned and splinted with flow composite

thesis supported by 4 zygomatic implants.



430

431

432433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

web4C=FPO

FIGURE 6. Virtual implant positioning in a Class IIA defect case. The angulation of the implants can be adjusted according to the final pros-thetic position and their dimensions can be adapted in the 3-dimensional model. The patient underwent a left maxillectomy for oral squamouscell carcinoma. Q8The defect was initially restored using a temporalis muscle flap.


web4C=FPO


449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536537

or resin. An impression was taken with a polyetherimpression material (Impregum Penta, 3M ESPE, St

Paul, MN) using a custom-made tray, reproducing the

dental arch, placed in occlusion. Within 72 hours, a

screw-retained fixed bridge was delivered (Fig 10).

A new definitive prosthesis could be placed after a

3-month follow-up if the prosthetist deemed it neces-

sary. The definitive prosthesis could be a fixed

bridge or an overdenture-retaining bar to facilitateoral hygiene.

538

539

540

541

542

FOLLOW-UP

After 3 months, the prosthesis was unscrewed and

implant stability was tested. Implant stability, pain,

FIGURE 7. Intraoperative image



and inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissue werethe parameters assessed. The same clinical outcomes

were evaluated at each subsequent assessment at 6,

12, and 18 months. Postoperative radiographs (ortho-

pantomogram and lateral head radiograph) were taken

immediately after surgery, after 6 and 12 months, and

then once every year (Figs 11, 12).

QUALITY-OF-LIFE ASSESSMENT

The Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Question-

naire (OHRQOL) is ‘‘a multidimensional construct

that reflects (among other things) people’s comfort

when eating, sleeping, and engaging in social inter-

action; their self-esteem; and their satisfaction with

showing implant positioning.



543

544545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

Q5

web4C=FPO

FIGURE 8. Zygomatic implant design.


web4C=FPO


561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632633

634

635

respect to their oral health.’’16 The OHRQOL is

associated with functional factors, psychological fac-tors, social factors, and experience of pain or

discomfort.17

OH-14 QOL questionnaires were administered to

each patient. A high score indicates low functional

ability. The questionnaire was administered preopera-

FIGURE 9. Intraoperative implant positioning control using a navigationof the planned site and the angulation of the implant during the insertion.



tively (T0) and after prosthetic rehabilitation at

2 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T2).

Results

Five patients received this treatment (age range,

51 to 83 yr; mean, 61.8 yr). The follow-up period

system. The navigation screen allows the surgeon to view the drilling



636

637

638

639

640641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

web4C=FPO

FIGURE 10. Dental prosthesis fixed 72 hours after surgery.



673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768769

770

771

772

773

was 10 to 29 months (mean, 12 months). Four of the

5 patients had delayed implant placement withrespect to primary maxillary resection. The mean in-

terval from resection to implant positioning was

34 months (range, 29 to 61 months).

One patient had implants placed at the same time as

surgical bone resection. This patient underwent adju-

vant radiotherapy 2 months after implant insertion.

Table 1 lists the patient characteristics and the

numbers of implants positioned in each case. Accord-ing to the proposed classification, 2 patients were in

Class IIA, 1 was in Class IIC, 1 was in Class I, and 1

was in Class III. The total number of zygomatic im-

plants positioned was 17. Four patients had immediate

loading of a fixed prosthesis and 1 had delayed loading.

One patient had 1 failed implant. At approximately

8 months after loading, during a follow-up examina-

tion, unscrewing of the prosthesis was detected. Afterprosthesis removal, 1 implant had a rotation during

contra-torque shunting. The fixture was unscrewed

without local anesthesia and the prosthesis was re-

placed. No definitive prosthesis has been requested

the prosthodontist or the patient. To date, no peri-

implantitis or local inflammation has occurred.
774
775

776777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

QUALITY-OF-LIFE ASSESSMENT

Results from the OH-14 QOL questionnaire are re-

ported using a score system. Information on QOL al-

lows the assessment of patient-reported perceptions,

thus improving the possibility of effective communica-tion between physicians and patients.18 This leads to

better knowledge of the impact of oral health on the

daily activities of the patient and an evaluation of the

clinical results obtained. The OH-14 questionnaire


mean values at baseline and at T0, T1, and T2 are listed

in Table 2.A mean of 10 points in QOL improvement was re-

corded between the T0 and T2 assessments.

Discussion

Extensive surgery for neoplasms of the jaws often

produces serious functional, emotional, and social ef-

fects on patients.19 Currently, immediate reconstruc-

tion with local pedicled flaps or microsurgical flaps

is often performed, somewhat decreasing postopera-

tive functional impairment. However, even when

reconstruction is performed successfully, it does not

always guarantee functional restoration of mastica-tion. Soft tissue flaps, temporalis muscle flaps, and fas-

ciocutaneous free flaps do not offer the possibility of

implant insertion.

Althoughminor maxillary bone resections can be re-

paired easily, large defects often require complex reha-

bilitation.8 Some of these cases could be restored using

standard implants with long abutments anchored in

the zygoma area.20

In contrast, most extensive resections lead to com-

plete loss of the alveolar bone with the consequent

loss of support for the facial soft tissues in the lip

and cheek areas.8

Moreover, in most cases, surgery is associated with

adjuvant radiotherapy that can cause adjunctive

impairment of the elastic properties of the facial

structures.In patients in whom immediate reconstruction with

amicrosurgical bone flap after a subtotal maxillectomy

is not possible, zygomatic implants could represent

the only available option to obtain stable support for


FIGURE 11. Frontal radiographic outcomes of a Class IIA defect.


FLA 5.4.0 DTD � YJOMS56955_proof � 22 September 2015 � 8:11 pm � CE AH


785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888889

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

FIGURE 12. Lateral radiographic outcomes of a Class IIA defect.



897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992993

994

995

996

997

998

999

10001001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

a viable prosthesis.7,8 The specific design of zygomaticimplants allows their insertion even in cases of large

bone defects because they obtain bicortical stability

through the malar bone.6 There is agreement that

placement of a zygomatic implant is more complex

and difficult than conventional oral implant place-

ment.21 Not only the dimensions of the implants but

also the anatomic intricacies of the curved zygomatic

bone make this type of surgery a challenging proce-dure.22,23 Moreover, the presence of the orbital floor

and the limited intraoperative visibility require great

accuracy during the surgical insertion of implants.

The surgical procedure can be simplified and

facilitated using computer-assisted planning and sur-


gery.24 A computer-based transfer of preplanned posi-tioning can be achieved using drill guides.14 However,

when applying this technique, precision depends

largely on the ability to position the drill guide accu-

rately on the underlying tissue.13,21 In contrast to the

technique using drilling templates, a computer-aided

surgical navigation approach offers constant intrao-

perative visualization of the tip of the drilling bur.

This enables the surgeon to guide the drill preciselyto control the implant axis and achieve better implant

stability. A cadaver study reported an accuracy of

1.3 � 0.8 mm in the implant versus planned posi-

tion.25 This result appears to be better than the accu-

racy achieved using drilling templates.13


Q6

Q10

Table 1. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPLANT POSITIONS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF MAXILLARY DEFECT

Patient Number Age (yr) Diagnosis Class of Defect Zygomatic Implants Failure

1 56 OSCC IIA 3

2 77 OSCC IIC 4 1

3 62 ACC I 4

4 54 Mucoepidermoid carcinoma IIA 2

5 59 cleft III 4

Abbreviations: ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; OSCC, oral squamous cell carcinoma. Q9



1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

10161017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

10241025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

10321033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

10401041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

10481049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

10561057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

10721073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

10801081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

10881089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

10961097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

11041105

1106

1107

1108

In the authors’ experience, the use of preoperative

virtual surgical planning and an intraoperative naviga-

tion system allows the surgeon to achieve safer

implant positioning in a complex anatomic site.15

The rationale for proposing a new defect-based clas-

sification and algorithm is based on the opportunity af-

forded, using new techniques, to perform implant

insertion in extreme bone deficiency. Classificationsof maxillary bone defects described in the literature

do not consider the functional aspect of residual denti-

tion. The classification of Brown and Shaw26 considers

the size of the defect in soft and hard tissues and the

preferred method of microvascular reconstruction.

However, it does not consider rehabilitative options

when reconstruction is performed without bone-

free flaps.Jensen et al20 in 1992 described available sites for

implant placement in the facial skeleton and suggested

a viable craniofacial site classification. The authors’ new

reconstructive algorithmcouldbeconsidered a step for-

ward, although their suggestions have not been widely

adopted. Compared with the classification of Jensen

et al,20 the present classification is simpler and more

effectively considers the rehabilitative opportunities af-forded by zygomatic implants and computer-assisted

surgery for patients in whom bone reconstruction is

not performed. For each type of defect, the authors’

classification defines the number of zygomatic implants

required to optimize functional and esthetic outcomes.

To the authors’ knowledge, no previous reported

study has tested zygomatic implants in oncologic pa-

Table 2. OH-14QOLQUESTIONNAIREMEANVALUESAT PREOPERATIVE, 2-WEEK, AND 6-MONTHEVALUATIONS

T0 T1 T2

Mean value 25.5 19.4 15.5

Abbreviations: OH-14 QOL, ---; T0, preoperative; T1,2-week follow-up; T2, 6-month follow-up.

Pellegrino et al. Computer-AidedMaxillary Defect Rehabilitation. J

Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015.


tients undergoing maxillectomy. In this study, the au-

thors tested these newly designed zygomatic

implants in various maxillary defects. This technique

appears to be a safe procedure to obtain effective reha-

bilitation after extensive maxillectomy. Early pros-

thetic loading certainly allows the patient to have

better functional outcomes and satisfactory mastica-

tory function. A fixed bridge not removable by the pa-tient for the first 3 months seems to promote

osseointegration of the implants. Prosthetic screwing

is advisable to obtain greater stability.

This use of fixed treatment does not allow for pa-

tient removal and cleaning. It can cause problems

from chronic inflammation. For this reason, the au-

thors suggest maintaining an adequate distance be-

tween the implant emergence and the prosthesis toallow the patient to perform a daily accurate cleaning.

The results of this series should be confirmed by

further studies and longer-term follow-up.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Claudio Carboni of the University of Bolognafor his work, S.I.R. Srl (Verona, Italy), and Southern Implants (Irene,South Africa).

1109

1110

1111

11121113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

References

1. Okay DJ, Gender E, Buchbinder D, et al: Prosthodontic guide-lines for surgical reconstruction of the maxilla: A classificationsystem of defects. J Prosthet Dent 86:352, 2001

2. Ohngren L: Malignant tumors of the maxillo-ethmoidal region.Acta Otolarynogol 19:1476, 1933

3. Davison SP, Sherris DA, Meland NB: An algorithm for maxillec-tomy defect reconstruction. Laryngoscope 108:215, 1998

4. Sisson G, Toriumi D, Atiyah RA: Paranasal sinus malignancy: Acomprehensive update. Laryngoscope 99:143, 1989

5. Cordeiro PG, Santamaria E, Kraus DH, et al: Reconstruction oftotal maxillectomy defects with preservation of the orbital con-tents. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1874, 1998

6. Devlin H, Barker GR: Prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulouspatient requiring a partial maxillectomy. J Prosthet Dent 67:223,1992

7. Shirota T, Shimodaira O, Matsui Y, et al: Zygoma implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with a maxillarydefect. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:113, 2011

8. D’Agostino A, Procacci P, Ferrari F, et al: Zygoma implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient after subtotalbilateral maxillectomy. J Craniofac Surg 24:e159, 2013


Q7


1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

11281129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

11361137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

11441145

1146

1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

11521153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

11601161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

11681169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

11841185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

11921193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

9. Malevez C, Abarca C, Durdu F, et al: Clinical outcome of 103consecutive zygomatic implants: A 6-48 month follow-up study.Clin Oral Implants Res 15:18, 2004

10. Br�anemark PI: TheOsseointegration Book from the Calvarium tothe Calcaneus. Berlin, Germany, Quintessence, 2005

11. Guerrero CA, Sabogal A: Zygoma Implants. Atlas of Surgery andProsthetics. Madrid, Spain, Edit Ripano, 2009

12. Guerrero CA, Sader G, Henriquez M, et al: Zygomatic implantswith pentagonal design for the rehabilitation of the intermediatemaxilla. Implant News 9:49, 2012 (in Portuguese).

13. Bedrosian E, Stumpel L 3rd, Beckely ML, Indresano T: The zygo-matic implant: Preliminary data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 17:861, 2002

14. Schmidt BL, Pogrel MA, Young CW, et al: Reconstruction ofextensive maxillary defects using zygomaticus implants. J OralMaxillofac Surg 62:82, 2004

15. Pellegrino G, Basile F, Richieri L, et al: Large defect rehabilitationof upper jaw with zygomatic/oncologic implants. Preliminaryresults of a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(suppl10):491, 2014

16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health inAmerica: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD, USDepartment of Health and Human Services, National Instituteof Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes ofHealth, 2000, p 7

17. Inglehart MR, Bagramian RA: Oral Health Related Quality of Life.Hanover Park, IL, Quintessence Publishing, 2002

18. Bennadi D, Reddy CV: Oral health related quality of life. J Int SocPrev Community Dent 3:1, 2013


19. Tarsitano A, Pizzigallo A, Ballone E, et al: Health-related quality oflife as a survival predictor for patientswith oral cancer: Is qualityof life associated with long-term overall survival? Oral Surg OralMed Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:756, 2012

20. Jensen OT, Brownd C, Blacker J: Nasofacial prostheses sup-ported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im-plants 7:203, 1992

21. Stella JP, Warner MR: Sinus slot technique for simplification andimproved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: A tech-nical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:889, 2000

22. Chow J, Hui E, Lee PK, et al: Zygomatic implants—Protocol forimmediate occlusal loading: A preliminary report. J Oral Maxillo-fac Surg 64:804, 2006

23. Vrielinck L, Politis C, Schepers S, et al: Image-based planning andclinical validation of zygoma and pterygoid implant placementin patients with severe bone atrophy using customized drillguides. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32:7, 2003

24. Van Steenberghe D, Malevez C, Van Cleynenbreugel J, et al:Accuracy of drilling guides for transfer from three-dimensionalCT-based planning to placement of zygoma implants in humancadavers. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:131, 2003

25. Watzinger F, Birkfellner W, Wanschitz F, et al: Placement ofendosteal implants in the zygoma after maxillectomy: A cadaverstudy using surgical navigation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:659,2001

26. Brown JS, Shaw RJ: Reconstruction of the maxilla and mid-face: Introducing a new classification. Lancet Oncol 11:1001, 2010


1199

12001201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

12081209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

12161217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

12241225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

computer-aided rehabilitation of maxillary oncological

Documents