» Articles » PMID: 39124809

Clinical Outcomes of Pterygoid and Maxillary Tuberosity Implants: A Systematic Review

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2024 Aug 10
PMID 39124809
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to assess the survival of implants placed in the maxillary tuberosity or in the pterygomaxillary region of the maxilla, based on a systematic review of the literature. An electronic search was undertaken in three databases. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was calculated. The log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test was used to compare the survival distributions between some groups. Thirty-eight studies were included, reporting 3446 implants (3053 pterygoid, 393 tuberosity) in 2245 patients, followed up for a mean ± SD of 61.0 ± 36.3 months (min-max, 1-144). A total of 208 pterygoid and 12 tuber implants failed, with a clear concentration of failures in the first year of follow-up and a 10-year CSR of 92.5% and 96.9%, respectively. The survival of pterygoid implants was lower than that of implants in the maxillary tuberosity ( = 0.006; log-rank test), and the survival of implants submitted to early/delayed loading was lower than that of immediately loaded implants ( < 0.001; log-rank test). Non-splinted implants presented higher failure rates. Few cases of intra- or postoperative complications were reported. Implants placed in the pterygoid process/maxillary tuberosity present a high 10-year CSR, although with lower survival for pterygoid in comparison to tuber implants. Pterygoid/tuber implants that are splinted with other implants may present higher survival rates than those that are not splinted.

Citing Articles

Discriminating between the maxillary tuberosity and the alveolar tuberosity- a critical pictorial review.

Dandoczi C, Rusu M, Muresan A, Tudose R Surg Radiol Anat. 2025; 47(1):60.

PMID: 39841293 PMC: 11754339. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-025-03569-0.

References
1.
Chrcanovic B, Pedrosa A, Custodio A . Zygomatic implants: a critical review of the surgical techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 17(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-012-0316-y. View

2.
Signorini L, Faustini F, Samarani R, Grandi T . Immediate fixed rehabilitation supported by pterygoid implants for participants with severe maxillary atrophy: 1-Year postloading results from a prospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 126(1):67-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.005. View

3.
Haggman-Henrikson B, Ali D, Aljamal M, Chrcanovic B . Bruxism and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023; 51(1):202-217. DOI: 10.1111/joor.13567. View

4.
Venturelli A . A modified surgical protocol for placing implants in the maxillary tuberosity: clinical results at 36 months after loading with fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11(6):743-9. View

5.
Luo C, Peng G, Xia W, Feng Y, Shen L, Huang X . [Clinical study on united crowns or bridges for restoration of posterior teeth with insufficient maxillary bone by means of maxillary tuberosity dental implants]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2018; 27(2):170-175. View