Incidence of sinusitis after surgery for zygomatic implant placement in patients with atrophic maxilla: A systematic review

• Published in: Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, medicine, and pathology Vol. 35; no. 2; pp. 103 - 108
• Main Authors: Miyasawa, Erton Massamitsu, Vianna, Camila Pereira, Rocha, Roberta Schroder, Ribeiro Junior, Paulo Domingos, Trojan, Larissa Carvalho, Padovan, Luis Eduardo Marques
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2023
• Subjects: Adverse events; Atrophic maxilla; Sinusitis; Systematic review; Zygomatic implants; Atrophic maxilla; Systematic review; Zygomatic implants; Adverse events; Sinusitis
• ISSN: 2212-5558; 2212-5566
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2022.07.007

The aim of this systematic review is to verify the prevalence of sinusitis in patients with atrophic maxilla who were rehabilitated with zygomatic implants. Electronic searches were made for prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, ambidirectional, or randomized controlled trial studies in humans. According to pre-established criteria. A total of 25 studies were included for data extraction and quality assessment by two independent reviewers. The selected studies were published between 2005 and 2019 and included a total of 1050 patients with mean ages ranging from 48 to 63 years old and a total of 2423 zygomatic implants. There was no occurrence of sinusitis in 9 studies, while it ranged from 1.85% to 92.5% cases in the other 16 studies, with higher incidence for intrasinus technique. Regarding the quality assessment of the studies, the only RCT included in this review presented some concerns regarding the risk of bias, according to ROB-2 tool, whereas most of the observational studies were evaluated as presenting a serious or critical risk of bias, according to ROBINS-I tool. The mean incidence of sinusitis in patients with zygomatic implants rehabilitation is 13.56% and it seems to be related to their placement technique. The present study is most based on observational studies with serious or critical risk of bias. Therefore, it should be interpreted with caution, and more randomized controlled studies are needed for better comprehension.