An interventional study of Rough Surface Zygomatic Implant and Partially Machined Surface Zygomatic Implant in Atrophic Maxilla, Zygomatic Implants and Implant Surface, sponsored by University of Bologna. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-08-15.
Sponsored by University of Bologna · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This clinical study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of zygomatic implants placed using dynamic navigation technology. Specifically, it compares two types of zygomatic implants with different surface characteristics: one with a fully rough surface and another with a partially smooth (machined) surface near the gum line. The goal is to determine whether surface design affects surgical performance, healing, implant success, and patient outcomes. A total of 22 patients with severe upper jaw bone loss will receive both types of implants-one on each side of the upper jaw-in a randomized, split-mouth design. The study also evaluates pain, swelling, healing time, and patient quality of life over a 5-year follow-up period.
This prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical study investigates the use of dynamic navigation for the placement of zygomatic implants in patients with severely atrophic maxillae. The primary aim is to compare two different surface configurations of zygomatic implants: a fully rough surface versus a partially machined (smooth) coronal surface. Each of the 22 enrolled patients will receive both implant types-one per side-allowing for direct intra-patient comparison.
All surgeries are planned using three-dimensional imaging and performed with a dynamic navigation system (ImplaNav), calibrated for the longer drills required for zygomatic implant sites. The study evaluates surgical accuracy, implant stability, preparation time, postoperative pain and swelling, sinus membrane response, and long-term implant and prosthetic success. Patient quality of life is also monitored over a 5-year follow-up using standardized questionnaires and radiographic assessments.
This study aims to provide evidence on whether implant surface design influences clinical performance and healing outcomes in zygomatic implant rehabilitation.
470 studies on the registry are indexed under Bone Diseases, Metabolic; 71 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 22 is below the median of 60 across 359 interventional studies indexed under Bone Diseases, Metabolic.
Browse Bone Diseases, Metabolic studies →University of Bologna is the lead sponsor of 153 studies on the registry; 24 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients requiring partial or full rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla
Candidates for placement of at least one zygomatic implant per side (right and left), connected to at least one standard or zygomatic implant
Severe maxillary atrophy confirmed by CT scan, with insufficient bone for conventional implants or only sufficient bone for 2 frontal implants (minimum diameter 3.5 mm, length 8 mm)
Residual alveolar crest height ≤ 4 mm beneath the maxillary sinus
Age ≥ 18 years
Signed informed consent
Exclusion Criteria:
General contraindications to oral surgery
History of radiation therapy to the head and neck exceeding 70 Gy
Compromised or suppressed immune system
Current or past use of intravenous bisphosphonates
Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus
Alcohol or drug dependency
Psychiatric disorders
Pregnancy or breastfeeding
Participation in other clinical trials
Inability to attend a 5-year follow-up
Limited mouth opening (\< 3.5 cm interincisal distance)
Absence of opposing dentition or lower prosthesis
Acute or chronic infection in the intended implant site
Untreated active periodontal disease
Poor oral hygiene motivation
Radiographic signs of sinus membrane inflammation or ostium obstruction
Patients receive a zygomatic implant with a fully roughened surface (from apex to collar) on one side of the maxilla. Implant placement is performed using dynamic navigation. This arm serves as the control in a split-mouth randomized design.
Device: Rough Surface Zygomatic Implant
Patients receive a zygomatic implant with a modified surface, including a smooth machined coronal portion, a non-threaded machined intermediate section, and a rough apical portion, on the contralateral side of the maxilla. Implant placement is performed using dynamic navigation. This arm represents the test condition in the split-mouth design.
Device: Partially Machined Surface Zygomatic Implant
Surgical placement of a zygomatic implant with a fully roughened surface from apex to collar. Used for the control arm.
Surgical placement of a modified zygomatic implant with a smooth machined coronal portion, a non-threaded machined middle section, and a rough apical portion. Used for the test arm.
Implant Success Rate of Zygomatic Fixtures
The success of each zygomatic implant will be assessed clinically by evaluating the absence of pain, absence of mobility or rotation under contra-torque testing, and the presence of healthy peri-implant tissues. Clinical evaluation will be supported by radiographic analysis to confirm peri-implant bone maintenance and the absence of pathological signs.
Time frame: 5 years after implant placement
Surgical Site Preparation Time
Time required to prepare each zygomatic implant site will be recorded, from the start of the first drill to the complete insertion of the implant. The comparison aims to detect differences between the rough and partially machined implant groups.
Time frame: Intraoperative (during implant placement)
Radiographic Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone
Assessment of peri-implant bone levels will be performed through standardized radiographs (OPT and teleradiography) and analyzed using calibrated software. Bone changes will be compared between implant types.
Time frame: At prosthesis delivery, and at 1, 3, and 5 years post-loading
Peri-implant Probing Depth (PD)
Mean probing depth, in millimetres, measured circumferentially around each implant to assess peri-implant soft-tissue health. Results will be reported as mean ± SD per implant.
Time frame: 1, 3, and 5 years after functional loading
Number of Implants with Bleeding on Probing (BOP)
Count of dental implants that exhibit bleeding upon gentle circumferential probing (≤ 0.25 N). The result will be reported as the total number of affected implants and the corresponding percentage of all implants examined at each follow-up visit.
Time frame: 1, 3, and 5 years after functional loading
Number of Implants with Suppuration
Count of dental implants showing the presence of suppuration (pus discharge) upon gentle probing (≤ 0.25 N) during clinical examination. The result will be reported as the number and percentage of affected implants at each follow-up visit.
Time frame: 1, 3, and 5 years after functional loading
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Atrophic Maxilla
University of Bologna