Treatment planning
For the purpose of this article the presentation will focus on the upper arch. The option to preserve the patient’s remaining upper teeth was considered but excluded due to the guarded-to-poor prognosis of those teeth, and importantly also due to the limitations/constraints of such option and obstacles to achieving the desired outcome in terms of dental and gingival aesthetics, function, hygiene, and longevity.
The removal of all the remaining upper natural teeth was preferred by both the patient and the referring dentist.
Rehabilitation with full fixed implant-supported restorations provides an opportunity to better control the outcome and an improved flexibility in the planning and design process in order to reach the functional and aesthetic expectations of the patient, as well as to facilitate improved hygiene.
Before relying on the radiographic images to plan implant positions, it was critical to assess the clinical situation and gum display. On smiling there was a moderate gum display in the upper (including in the edentulous segment), and tooth (but no gum) display in the lower. This was an important consideration in planning her treatment, and dictated a need for a moderate alveolectomy.
Rationale for Zygomatic Implants
Taking the required alveolectomy into account, the volume of maxillary bone was borderline but adequate for four implants from 5 to 5 (angulated in the posterior). Whilst this would typically provide adequate mechanical support for fixed teeth, the radiographic bone quality was Type 3-4, which would later be confirmed at surgery. The poor quality of the bone would affect the stability of standard implants, thus Zygomatic implants was considered as a more predictable alternative, subject to further intra-operative assessment.
Radiographic Assessment of Zygomatic Bone and Sinus Condition
(Fig. 5) Below there is a panoramic reconstruction of a 3-D Cone Beam CT file with the re-slice curve following the maxillary arch anteriorly and diverging laterally to capture the Zygomatic bone. This allow assessment of the maxillary bone and sinuses along the path of the planned Zygoma implants, as well as the shape and thickness of the Zygomatic bone itself (Fig. 6).
The left sinus (Fig. 5) is normal, but on the right there is thickening of the sinus mucosa. This thickening may be related to past odontogenic pathology but is inconsequential as there otherwise appears to be normal drainage and a patent opening of the osteo-meatal complex.
The thickness and cross-sectional shape of the Zygomatic bone in (Fig. 6) is not ideal and an implant with a smaller apex and thinner core, like Straumann Zygomatic Implant ZAGA Flat, has a particular advantage in such cases.