Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42720248

Indications, Techniques and Complications Associated With Pterygoid Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pterygoid implants represent a graftless option for rehabilitation of patients with posterior maxillary atrophy, engaging the dense cortical bone of the pterygomaxillary complex. Despite clinical growth, a comprehensive synthesis of indications, surgical techniques, and complications is lacking. This review evaluated the prevalence of complications, implant survival rates, and marginal bone loss (MBL) associated with pterygoid implant placement. METHODS: The reporting of this review follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, WoS, CENTRAL, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source) were searched from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025. Included criteria comprised randomized and non-randomized clinical studies reporting outcomes of pterygoid implants (≥ 13 mm) in adult patients with posterior maxillary atrophy (minimum 10 implants). Risk of bias was assessed using JBI critical appraisal checklists. Proportions were pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation under a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen studies reporting 846 patients and 1915 pterygoid implants were included. The pooled survival rate was 97.9% (95% CI: 97.1%-98.6%; I2 = 0%; 14 studies) and the overall failure rate was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.4%-3.0%). Early failure rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.0%-3.0%; I2 = 59.5%). Late failure and MBL were summarized narratively. Certainty of evidence was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Pterygoid implants demonstrate excellent survival (97.9%) and low failure rates (2.1%), primarily early, supporting their reliability as a graftless solution for posterior maxillary atrophy. Complications appear infrequent though heterogeneously reported. Low evidence certainty necessitates prospective studies with standardized outcome reporting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Francesco Gianfreda, Luca Guarente, Marzia Lommi, Maria Scarpati Cioffari di Castiglione, Alberto Antonio Nativio, Carlo Raffone, Mirko Martelli, Patrizio Bollero. 2026. Indications, Techniques and Complications Associated With Pterygoid Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70180

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of intraoral photogrammetry for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: A retrospective multicentre study on 35 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) fabricated using an intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) based digital workflow in completely edentulous patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective clinical study included 35 patients rehabilitated with 52 complete-arch ISFDPs (10 FP1, 18 FP2 and 24 FP3 restorations) supported by 221 implants. All definitive prostheses were designed and fabricated using a fully digital workflow initiated by IPG acquisition with the Aoralscan Elite IPG® (SHINING 3D). The primary outcome was clinical accuracy, assessed at definitive prosthesis delivery through evaluation of passive fit using the Sheffield test and radiographic verification. Secondary outcomes included biologic and prosthetic complications, as well as implant and prosthesis survival rates during the follow-up. RESULTS: Passive fit was achieved in all definitive restorations (100%). Radiographic evaluation confirmed accurate marginal adaptation at the implant-prosthesis interface in all cases. No statistically significant differences in clinical accuracy were observed according to treated arch, number of supporting implants, or prosthetic design (P > .05). During a mean follow-up period of 12.1 ± 3.5 months, biologic and prosthetic complications were limited and generally minor. Implant survival was 99.5%, and prosthesis survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective clinical study, the IPG based workflow demonstrated high clinical accuracy and predictable short-term outcomes for complete-arch implant rehabilitation, consistently enabling passive fit and favorable prosthetic performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IPG may represent a clinically reliable and predictable approach for complete-arch digital implant impression acquisition. The high rates of passive fit, together with the low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications observed in this multicenter clinical study, support the use of IPG based workflows for the fabrication of complete-arch ISFDPs.

Humans

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of &#x2265;3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 3.25 &#xb1; 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3&#x223c;6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1&#x223c;3.75] vs. 4.15 &#xb1; 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 &#xb1; 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4&#x223c;5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 &#xb1; 13.32 vs. 144.11 &#xb1; 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 &#xb1; 10.28 vs. 82.37 &#xb1; 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50&#x223c;79.25] vs. 85.00 &#xb1; 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans

The use of diode laser and scalpel blade in stage-two dental implant surgery: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of lasers in dental implant procedures raises questions regarding the preservation of keratinized tissues and implant outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical effects (pain and impression time) and soft tissue healing (keratinization, peri-implant probing, bleeding, and healing) of diode lasers and scalpels used during stage-two dental implant surgery. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A prospective randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted. The study included 30 patients, each with a single, fully osseointegrated implant. Patients were categorized into two groups. The study group underwent stage-two implant surgery using a 970-nm diode laser. In the control group, implants were exposed using a conventional surgical blade. A comparison between the diode laser and conventional scalpel groups was made based on clinical outcomes (pain and impression time) and soft tissue healing (keratinization, peri-implant probing, bleeding, and healing). Data were analyzed using a paired t test. RESULTS: Pain intensity significantly decreased from immediate postoperative to 7 days in both scalpel (49.87 &#xb1; 6.78, t = 28.48, df = 14, P .001) and diode laser (7.67 &#xb1; 7.58, t = 3.91, df = 14, P = .002) groups. Immediately after surgery, pain scores were significantly higher in the scalpel group compared with the diode laser group (94.53 &#xb1; 4.45 vs 46.93 &#xb1; 5.85, t = 25.076, df = 26.151, P .001). Although pain decreased in both groups by day 7, the scalpel group continued to exhibit significantly greater pain (44.67 &#xb1; 5.96 vs 39.27 &#xb1; 3.73, t = 2.974, df = 23.513, P = .007). Impression time (P = .231) and gingival keratinized tissue (P = .736) did not differ significantly between the scalpel and diode laser approaches. At week 6, the scalpel group exhibited a significantly higher mean peri-implant bleeding index (2.60 &#xb1; 0.507) compared with the laser group (0.07 &#xb1; 0.258, P .001). However, after 12 weeks, no significant difference was observed (1.58 &#xb1; 0.19 vs 1.55 &#xb1; 0.21, P = .748). Laser surgery produced significantly better early wound healing at all intervals (P .001), while intraoperative bleeding was more common with the scalpel technique than with the diode laser (100.0% vs 66.7%, P = .042). CONCLUSION: Compared with the scalpel method, the diode laser method resulted in a significant reduction in pain intensity, improved wound healing, and less peri-implant bleeding during the stage-two dental implant surgery.

Humans