Zygomatic implant (ZI) is considered a predictable alternative for patients with atrophic maxilla. However, regarding the case of patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP), the evidence of ZI rehabilitation remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the indications and clinical outcomes of rehabilitation using ZI in CLP patients. The focus question was: “What are the indications and clinical outcomes of ZI rehabilitation in patients with CLP?” Electronic and manual literature searches were performed from January 2000 to May 2024 in five databases. Clinical studies and case reports were selected. The primary outcome was the ZI survival rates. The secondary outcomes were indications, loading protocols, and complications. The extracted data were subjected to descriptive analysis. In total, 16 studies were included, 24 patients with CLP received 48 ZIs, with an average of 4.2 years of follow-up. The survival rate of ZIs was 97.9% and was mainly indicated for those with Cawood and Howell classification V and VI, with insufficient bone in the maxilla with bilateral CLP. The immediate loading was performed in 33.3% of the cases, and the prosthesis was designed according to case complexity and necessity. ZI rehabilitation appears to be a reliable and predictable solution for the patient with CLP. The immediate loading solution can be beneficial to CLP patients as it helps avoid additional treatments. However, with the inconsistently limited data, the indications cannot be only based on the existing CLP classification.
De Barros FerreiraSEsperLASbranaMCRibeiroIWJDe AlmeidaALPF. Survival of dental implants in the cleft area—a retrospective study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(6):586-590. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/08-155
3.
da Silva FilhoOGValladares NetoJCapelloza FilhoLde Souza FreitasJ. Influence of lip repair on craniofacial morphology of patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(2):144-153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2003_040_0144_iolroc_2.0.co_2
4.
FreitasJASdas NevesLTde AlmeidaALPFGaribDGTrindade-SuedamIKYaedúRYFLaurisRCMCSoaresMOliveiraTMPintoJHN. Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the hospital for rehabilitation of craniofacial anomalies/USP (HRAC/USP) - part 1: overall aspects. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(1):9-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000100003
5.
AlfarsiMAShaikS. Oral rehabilitation of a cleft palate patient with tooth-supported, telescopic magnetic overdenture. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13(11):e233777. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2019-233777
6.
ParelSMBrånemarkPIOhrnellLOSvenssonB. Remote implant anchorage for the rehabilitation of maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(4):377-381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.118874
7.
PhamAVAbarcaMDe MeyAMalevezC. Rehabilitation of a patient with cleft lip and palate with an extremely edentulous atrophied posterior maxilla using zygomatic implants: case report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(5):571-574. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/03-105.1
8.
WangFMonjeALinGHWuYMonjeFWangH-LDavoR. Reliability of four zygomatic implant-supported prostheses for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(2):293-298. doi:https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3691
9.
LanKWangFHuangWDavóRWuY. Quad zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis on survival and complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(1):21-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8417
10.
MoraschiniVde QueirozTRSartorettoSCde AlmeidaDCFCalasans-MaiaMDLouroRS. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants compared to conventional implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 5 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(1):177-189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13153
11.
Brennand RoperMVissinkADuddingTPollardAGarebBMalevezCBalshiTBrechtLKumarVWuY, et al.Long-term treatment outcomes with zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00479-x
12.
DavóRFelicePPistilliRBarausseCMarti-PagesCFerrer-FuertesAIppolitoDREspositoM. Immediately loaded zygomatic implants vs conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(2):145-161.
13.
de OliveiraGJPLBrackmannMSTrojanLCRibeiro JúniorPDPadovanLEM. Oral rehabilitation with zygomatic implants in a patient with cleft palate. Case Rep Dent. 2019;2019:6591256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6591256
14.
LandesCAGhanaatiSBallonAThaiVDReinhardRNolteDPiwowarczykAWagnerMSaderR. Severely scarred oronasal cleft defects in edentulous adults: initial data on the long-term outcome of telescoped obturator prostheses supported by zygomatic implants. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(4):74-783. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/12-025
15.
BolzoniARZingariFGalloFGokerFBerettaPDel FabbroMMortellaroCGrecchiFGiannìAB. Zygomatic implant guided rehabilitation based on inverted support technique: a pilot study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023;27(3 suppl):77-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202304_31324
16.
Al-NawasBAghalooTAparicioCBedrossianEBrechtLBrennand-RoperMChowJDavóRFanSJungR, et al.ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: indications, evaluation of surgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00489-9
17.
PolidoWDMachado-FernandezALinWSAghalooT. Indications for zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00480-4
18.
de SantisDTrevisiolLCucchiACantonLCNociniPF. Zygomatic and maxillary implants inserted by means of computer-assisted surgery in a patient with a cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(3):858-862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d7a7d3
19.
ChanaHSmithGBansalHZahraD. A retrospective cohort study of the survival rate of 88 zygomatic implants placed over an 18-year period. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):461-470. doi:https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6790
20.
GokerFGrecchiEDel FabbroMGrecchiF. Oral rehabilitation of bilateral cleft lip and palate patient with simultaneous LeFort I osteotomy and zygomatic implants: a case report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(11):1433-1438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211050002
21.
LevenJAliRButterworthCJ. Zygomatic implant-supported prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous patients with a history of cleft palate: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(5):684-688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.026
22.
AhlgrenFStørksenKTornesK. A study of 25 zygomatic dental implants with 11 to 49 months’ follow-up after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(3):421-425.
BlancOShiloDWeitmanECapuchaTRachmielA. Extramaxillary zygomatic implants: an alternative approach for the reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020;10(1):127-132. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_157_19
25.
D'AgostinoALombardoGFaveroVSignorielloABressanALonardiFNociniRTrevisiolL. Complications related to zygomatic implants placement: a retrospective evaluation with 5 years follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(7):620-627. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.01.020
26.
WangFFanSHuangWShenYLiCWuY. Dynamic navigation for prosthetically driven zygomatic implant placement in extensive maxillary defects: results of a prospective case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(4):435-443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13101
27.
LandesCAPaffrathCKoehlerCThaiVDStübingerSSaderRLauerH-CPiwowarczykA. Zygoma implants for midfacial prosthetic rehabilitation using telescopes: 9-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(1):20-32.
28.
MakSYWongWHOrCKPoonAMS. Incidence and cluster occurrence of palatal fistula after Furlow palatoplasty by a single surgeon. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57(1):55-59.
29.
BroscoTVDSPrearoGASilvaHLDADutkaJDCR. Sistema de classificação brosco-dutka para fístulas de palato. Rev Bras Cir Plást [Internet]. 2021;36(2):164-172. https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2021RBCP0063
30.
SnehaPRaviPArunachalamDKrishna Kumar RajaVB. Zygomatic hypoplasia in patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate: a case-control study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018;17(4):425-431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1069-9
31.
MahardawiBBoonsirisethKPairuchvejVWongsirichatN. Alveolar cleft bone grafting: factors affecting case prognosis. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;46(6):409-416. doi:https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.6.409
32.
McKenzieFTurnerAWithersSDalzellPMcGlynnMKirkEP. Dominant inheritance of cleft palate, microstomia and micrognathia—possible linkage to the fragile site at 16q22 (FRA16B). Clin Dysmorphol. 2002;11(4):237-241. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00019605-200210000-00002
33.
BrånemarkPIGröndahlKÖhrnellLONilssonPPetrusenBSvenssonBEngstrandPNannmarkU. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70-85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310310023918
34.
KörberK. Telescoping Crowns—The Rational Telescope System. Introduction to Clinic and Technique. Hüthig-Verlag; 1988.
35.
FreitasJAGaribDGTrindade-SuedamIKCarvalhoRMOliveiraTMLaurisRCMCAlmeidaALPFdas NevesLTYaedúRYFSoaresS, et al.Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the hospital for rehabilitation of craniofacial anomalies-USP (HRAC-USP)—part 3: oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(6):673-679. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572012000600014
36.
HoffmanGRBrennanPA. The skeletal stability of one-piece Le fort 1 osteotomy to advance the maxilla; part 2. The influence of uncontrollable clinical variables. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;42(3):226-230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.01.004
37.
WongFXHeggieAAShandJMSchneiderPM. Skeletal stability of maxillary advancement with and without a mandibular reduction in the cleft lip and palate patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(12):1501-1507. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.08.007
38.
BedrossianE. Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(6):1213-1221.
39.
AparicioCOuazzaniWGarciaRArevaloXMuelaRFortesV. A prospective clinical study on titanium implants in the zygomatic arch for prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with a follow-up of 6 months to 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(3):114-122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00009.x
40.
DavóRFanSWangFWuY. Long-term survival and complications of the quad zygoma protocol with anatomy-guided approach in severely atrophic maxilla: a retrospective follow-up analysis of up to 17 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2024;26(2):343-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13296
41.
KämmererPWFanSAparicioCBedrossianEDavóRMortonDRaghoebarGMZarrineSAl-NawasB. Evaluation of surgical techniques in survival rate and complications of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00478-y
42.
FanSSáenz-RavelloGDiazLWuYDavóRWangFMagicMAl-NawasBKämmererPW. The accuracy of zygomatic implant placement assisted by dynamic computer-aided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med.2023;12(16):5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12165418
SahooARSingh DheerSMaheshPCGoyalPSidhuRDeepalakshmiS. A questionnaire study to assess patients with cleft lip and palate for their oral health-related quality of life. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e38712. doi:https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38712
45.
DavóRFanSC. 20 Years of clinical evolution in zygomatic implant rehabilitation: long-term outcomes and current states. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am.2025;37(1):149-1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2024.08.006
46.
FanSDavóRAl-NawasBCastellónEV. The rehabilitation of partially edentulous maxilla with unilateral zygomatic implants: a retrospective study up to 23 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res.2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14377
47.
SunYXuCWangN,WuYLiuYFanSWangF. Virtual pterygoid implant planning in maxillary atrophic patients: prosthetic-driven planning and evaluation. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00472-4
48.
de GittinsEVCDYaedúRYFLaurisJRPRubiraCMFPaginBSCRubira-BullenIRF. Cleft lip and palate cause large variations in size and location of the posterior superior alveolar canal. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(7):4451-4458. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03757-9
49.
Montenegro de AndradeEJToledo Teixeira da SilveiraIMarinho BarcellosBReis de Araújo CarvalhoLFaria YaedúRY. Fracture patterns in cleft orthognathic surgery: a cross-sectional study. Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024;12(2):e194. doi:https://doi.org/10.21142/2523-2754-1202-2024-194
50.
FerlinRPaginOMelloMABYaedúRYF. Implications of anatomical variation of the sphenoid sinus for orthognathic surgery: a case report in cone beam computed tomography. RGO, Rev Gaúch Odontol [Internet]. 2023;71:e20230030. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-86372023003020220100
51.
da SilveiraITTDuarteBGCarvalhoLRABarcellosBMMelloMABYaedúRYF. What are the pterygomaxillary fracture patterns in cleft orthognathic surgery?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024:S0278-2391(24)00979-0. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.11.016
