Watanabe et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2005; 5: 71-74.

Zygoma fixtures for a patient with a severely atrophic maxilla: Aclinical report
Ikuya Watanabe, DDS, PhD,a Sloan Hildebrand, DDS, MS,b Ronald D. Woody, DDS, MS,band Reena Talwar, DDS, PhDc
abc

Department of Biomaterials Science, Graduate Prosthodontics, and Department of Oral & Maxillofacial
Surgery/Pharmacology, Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center,Dallas, TX, USA
This clinical report describes a functional and esthetic reconstruction using Brånemark zygoma fixtures for apatient with severely atrophic maxilla and Sjögren’s syndrome. After the extraction of the anterior maxillaryteeth, two zygoma fixtures and four Brånemark implants were placed in the patient’s maxilla. Five Brånemarkimplants were also placed in the mandible at the same time. After the implant placement, the maxillary andmandibular implants were restored with fixed detachable dentures. These functional and esthetic prostheses
have performed favorably without any problems for one year. (Int Chin J Dent 2005; 5: 71-74.)
Key Words: esthetics, fixed detachable denture, function, zygoma fixture.

Introduction
Osseointegrated implants have supported craniofacial prostheses after the introduction of these implants in the1980s. Longer custom-designed implants inserted into the zygomatic bone combined with the standardizedBrånemark system were introduced to treat patients with advanced atrophy of the maxilla.1-4 The zygomatranssinusal fixture was designed to be anchored apically in the zygomatic bone and marginally on the palatalside of a minimal residual alveolar crestal bone. Using this technique, bone grafts could be minimized oravoided altogether, and adequate mechanical stability could be achieved as well as providing greater posterior
support.

To obtain the long-term stability of a maxillary full arch implant-supported restoration, themanufacturer recommends rigid connection of two zygoma fixtures (one on each side) with at least two stable
conventional Brånemark system fixtures in the anterior maxilla. Using zygoma fixtures also reduces morbidity,
especially in elderly patients with compromised general health for whom bone grafting could be hazardous.
Compared with the traditional rehabilitation with bone grafts, the total treatment time can be shortened using thezygoma implants. This clinical report describes the functional and esthetic reconstruction using Brånemarkzygoma fixtures for a patient with a severely atrophic maxilla and Sjögren’s syndrome.

Clinical Report
The 70-year-old male patient in this report had an edentulous mandible with a root tip canine and failing
restoration (patchwork composite resin at the margins) of an anterior maxillary fixed partial denture (Fig. 1).
Due to the diminished salivary flow caused by Sjögren’s syndrome, the patient’s tongue and mucosa appeared
dry and red. Radiographic evaluation showed that the maxillary sinus floor appeared to be pneumatized in theright/left posterior areas (Fig. 2), and there was generalized bone loss throughout the mandible and severe
maxillary bone loss. Several possible treatment options, including extraction of the remaining dentition andrestoration with complete dentures, implant-supported dentures with sinus lift and bony augmentation, andimplant-supported dentures with bilateral zygomaticus implants, were outlined to the patient. The definitive plan71

Watanabe et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2005; 5: 71-74.

that the patient accepted was the placement of maxillary/mandibular implant-supported fixed detachable
dentures with bilateral zygomaticus implants.

1Fig. 1. Frontal view of the patient referred for prosthetic evaluation.
Fig. 2. Preoperative panoramic radiograph of the patient.

2

34Fig. 3. Delivery of zygoma fixture. Arrow indicates the window on the lateral wall of the sinus close to
the infrazygomatic crest.
Fig. 4. Implant abutments in maxilla. Note the dry mucosa.

5Fig. 5. Implant abutments in mandible. All standard multiunit abutments.
Fig. 6. Fixed detachable prostheses for maxilla (left) and mandible (right).

6

Before the surgery for the implant placement took place, surgical guides were fabricated on the master castmounted on a semi-adjustable articulator. After the anterior teeth were extracted, two Brånemark zygoma
fixtures (right: 42.5 mm; left: 50 mm) were placed in the second premolar area of the maxilla according tostandard clinical procedures (Fig. 3).3 Conventional Brånemark implants (Mk III Tiunite, RP Ø4 x 13 mm; RPØ4 x 15 mm, Nobel Biocare USA Inc., Yorba Linda, CA, USA) were also placed in the maxilla (Fig. 4, fourimplants) and the mandible (Fig. 5, five implants). The patient’s existing dentures relined with soft liner
material (relined every 3-4 weeks) were used to maintain the proper vertical dimension during the interim stagesof surgery.

72

Watanabe et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2005; 5: 71-74.

7Fig. 7. Maxillary fixed detachable denture at delivery.
Fig. 8. Extraoral view of the patient after restoration.

8Fig. 9.
Postoperative panoramic
radiograph of the patient.
Three months after this surgery, secondary surgery was conducted to place all healing abutments. Final
impressions were then taken for the definitive maxillary and mandibular prostheses. The metal frameworks forthe implant-supported superstructure were fabricated with cast gold alloy (Ney-Oro 60, Degussa-Ney Inc.,
Bloomfield, CT, USA) and gold cylinders (BI-00035, OD Ø4.8, Nobel Biocare USA, Inc.). After the passive fitof the cast metal frameworks and wax dentures were verified intraorally, final fixed detachable dentures werefabricated according to conventional methods (Fig. 6). The definitive fixed detachable prostheses were finallytorqued to 20 Ncm with gold retaining screws in the patient’s mouth (Fig. 7). The definitive prostheses provided
a group function occlusal scheme. The patient was satisfied with these functional and esthetic prostheses (Fig.
8), which have performed favorably for one year without any visible radiographic bone resorption (Fig. 9).

Discussion
Bone grafts must sometimes be performed before implant placement because of insufficient bone volume andbone loss (resorption) in order to establish functional and esthetic maxillary and mandibular restorations. In thepresent clinical case, zygoma fixtures were used to help restore a patient with a severely atrophic maxilla. The useof zygoma fixtures reduces the preoperative risks compared with traditional surgical methods including bone grafts,
which suggests that elderly patients with increased general health-related problems can be rehabilitated properly.
Compared to the overall fixture survival rate in conventional bone grafting, it seems that the zygoma fixture has ahigher survival rate. The survival rate for grafted patients varies from 60-87% according to reports for follow-up
periods from 19 months to 15 years.5-10 On the other hand, Hirsch et al.4 evaluated the survival rate of 124 zygoma
fixtures in 76 patients at 16 clinics and reported that the overall survival rate for zygoma fixtures was 97.9% after a1-year follow-up. The present clinical case is similar to their study because the patient was recalled for a 1-year73

Watanabe et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2005; 5: 71-74.

check-up. Brånemark et al.3 also reported an overall survival rate of zygoma fixtures of 94% after a longer
follow-up period of five to 10 years for 52 fixtures in 28 patients. The main advantage of zygoma fixtures overconventional bone grafting is the reduction in treatment time. A further advantage is that the number of implants
required to support a fixed prosthesis could be reduced. However, a potential disadvantage to consider withzygoma fixtures is the risk of orbital injury or postoperative sinusitis.2 Although no orbital injury or complications
occurred in the present case, follow-up appointments to monitor the zygoma fixtures and prostheses’ function willcontinue.
Acknowledgment
Editorial assistance by Mrs. Jeanne Santa Cruz is appreciated.

References
1. Worthington PH, Brånemark PI. Advanced osseointegration surgery. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1992. p. 15.
2. Higuchi KW. The zygomaticus fixture: an alternative approach for implant anchorage in the posterior maxilla. Ann R Australas
Coll Dent Surg 2000; 15: 28-33.
3. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Öhrnell LO, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla:technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg 2004; 38: 70-85.
4. Hirsch JM, Öhrnell LO, Henry PJ, et al. A clinical evaluation of the zygoma fixture: one year of follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62 (Suppl 2): 22-9.
5. Isaksson S. Evaluation of three grafting techniques for severely resorbed maxillae in conjunction with immediate endosseous
implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994; 9: 679-88.
6. Lundgren S, Nyströn E, Nilsson H, Gunne J, Lindhagen O. Bone grafting to the maxillary sinuses, nasal floor and anterior
maxilla in the atrophic edentulous maxilla. A two-stage technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 26: 428-34.
7. Lekholm U, Wannfors K, IsakssonS, Adielsson B. Oral implants in combination with bone grafts. A 3-year retrospective
multi-center study using the Brånemark implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 28: 181-7.
8. Keller EE, Tolman DE, Eckert SE. Maxillary antral-nasal inlay autogenous bone graft reconstruction of compromised
maxillae: a 12-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 14: 707-21.
9. Kahnberg KE, Nilsson P, Rasmusson L. Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional bone grafts and implants for rehabilitation ofthe severely resorbed maxilla. A 2-stage procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 571-8.
10. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Worthington P. Osseointegration and autogenous onlay bone grafts: reconstruction of theedentulous atrophic maxilla. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2001. p. 6.

Reprint request to:Dr. Ikuya Watanabe
Department of Biomaterials Science, Baylor College of DentistryTexas A&M University System Health Science Center
3302 Gaston Ave., Dallas, TX 75246, USA
Fax: +1-214-370-7001 E-mail: iwatanabe@bcd.tamhsc.edu
Received August 5, 2005. Revised August 15, 2005. Accepted August 23, 2005.
Copyright ©2005 by the Editorial Council of the International Chinese Journal of Dentistry.

74