Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Evaluation of Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Fixed Prostheses on Zygomatic Implants vs All-on-Four Concept: A Randomized Clinical Study.

AIM: To compare between the rehabilitation of atrophied maxilla with fixed prosthesis using two posterior zygomatic implants and two conventional anterior implants or four implants inserted according to the all-on-four concept regarding the patient quality of life and satisfaction after one year of prosthesis insertion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with atrophic edentulous maxillae were randomized into two groups: Group I (rehabilitated with fixed prostheses supported by two zygomatic and two conventional implants in the anterior region) and group II (fixed prostheses on four implants in the anterior region following an all-on-four concept). One year after the placement of the definitive prostheses, patients completed oral health impact profile-14 and satisfaction questionnaires.

RESULTS: All patients were satisfied regarding retention, stability, occlusion, comfort, cleaning, speaking, chewing, bolus quality, appearance, handling, prosthesis apart, and embarrassing, with no significant significance between two groups except satisfaction with surgical procedures and healing period.

CONCLUSIONS: Using two distally tilted zygomatic implants or all-on-four concept to rehabilitate atrophied maxilla by fixed detachable prosthesis could be considered a promising functional and esthetic treatment option regarding the patient satisfaction.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Traditionally, treatment of maxillary atrophied ridges was done by bone grafting or sinus-lifting techniques; however, using all-on-four concept or zygomatic implants was a successful treatment as it has high success rates and highly satisfied by the patients. How to cite this article: Nagib MA, Ibrahim AM, Abdel-Rahman FH, et al . Evaluation of Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Fixed Prostheses on Zygomatic Implants vs All-on-Four Concept: A Randomized Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):141-147.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app