An interventional study of ZYGOMATIC IMPLANT KIT in Implant Stability, sponsored by Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak. Completed at 1 site in India. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-05.
Sponsored by Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Various approach has outlined in the literature but no clinical studies that have compared the intrasinus and extrasinus approach for the placement of zygomatic implants using zygomatic success code.
The present study is planned to compare the intrasinus and extrasinus approach for the placement of zygomatic implant in severely resorbed edentulous maxillary arch using zygomatic success code.
Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak is the lead sponsor of 209 studies on the registry; 71 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
PARAMETERS ASSESED: 1. IMPLANT STABILITY 2. SINUS PATHOLOGY 3. SOFT TISSUE CONDITIONING 4. PROSTHETIC OFFSET 18 SAMPLES INCLUDED
Procedure: ZYGOMATIC IMPLANT KIT
PARAMETERS ASSESED: 1. IMPLANT STABILITY 2. SINUS PATHOLOGY 3. SOFT TISSUE CONDITIONING 4. PROSTHETIC OFFSET 18 SAMPLES INCLUDED
Procedure: ZYGOMATIC IMPLANT KIT
CRESTAL INCISION FROM TUBEROSITY TO TUBEROSITY AND REFLECT THE FLAP . OSTEOTOMY DONE FROM MOLAR TO ZYGOMATIC BONE.IMPLANT PLACEMENT DONE
Zygomatic implant stability
When extra-sinus and intra-sinus placed implants are tested individually, slight mobility should be detected with no other associated pathological signs. Instrument used for checking the implant stability is periotest. Mobility of the implant comes from the elastic modulus of the anchoring zygomatic bone when they are bent by a remotely applied force. On the other hand, the movement must not be rotational, and it will disappear when implants are splinted together. A rotational movement should be considered as a sign of implant failure. Grade I- no mobility, no pain Grade II-light clinical mobility, no pain Grade III-clear clinical mobility, no pain (no evidence of disintegration of the apical part of the implant or rotation Grade IV- clear clinical mobility, rotation and pain evidence of disintegration of apical part of the implant)
Time frame: Implant stability was evaluated individually after 3 and 6 months of implant placement and prosthetic rehabilitation
Associated sinus pathology
Frequently associated complications such as rhinitis and sinusitis were assessed by two scoring systems: Lund-Mackay staging and the Lanza and Kennedy score. Lund-Mackay stating and Lanza and Kennedy score This system scored six sinus regions: anterior ethmoid, posterior ethmoid, maxillary sinus, frontal sinus, sphenoid sinus, and osteomeatal complex for sinus pathology. The score 0 represented no abnormality; 1 represented partial opacification; and 2 represented total opacification. For the osteomeatal complex, the score was either 0 or 2. This scoring was done for pre-operative and post-operative evaluation. Lanza-Kennedy - Rhinosinusal Clinical Symptoms It is patient-related questionnaire to identify the rhinosinusal clinical symptoms. Each symptom question is answered by "yes" or "no". The diagnosis of sinusitis requires a "yes" answer in two or more major criteria, one major and two or more minor criteria, or purulence on nasal examination
Time frame: Associated sinus pathologywas assessed at 3 and 6 months after implant placement
Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Condition
Soft tissue around the zygomatic implant was assessed at 3 and 6 months after implant placement and prosthetic replacement, where the exposed implant surface was measured from the implant head to the soft tissue recession area.
Time frame: Soft tissue around the zygomatic implant was assessed at 3 and 6 months
Prosthetic Offset
Prosthetic success depends on the anatomic measurements to assess the implant position of the head of the zygomatic implant. Four anatomical measurements will be performed to assess the following: 1. Perpendicular distance between the tangent to the floor of the nose and sinus floor at the entrance of the zygomatic implant level. 2. Perpendicular distance between the tangent to the floor of the nose and the crest of the alveolar ridge at the entrance of the zygoma implant level. i. The height of the alveolar ridge at the location of the head of the zygomatic implant (measurement 2 minus 1) 3. Distance between the midline of the palate and the center of the zygomatic implant head. 4. Distance between the midline of the palate and the center of the alveolar ridge. ii. The position of the head of the zygomatic implants with regard to the center of the crest of the alveolar ridge in the horizontal axial dimension (measurement 4 minus 3). A positive value on this implant head position
Time frame: Prosthetic Offset assessed at 3 and 6 months
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2026. 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.
Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak