Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation for the atrophic edentulous maxilla: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Systematic Reviews volume 13, Article number: 146 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Atrophic edentulous maxilla is a debilitating condition caused by the progressive and irreversible bone resorption following loss of teeth, that results in bone of inadequate volume and density. This makes conventional implant therapy extremely challenging without complex reconstructive procedures. Several techniques such as sinus augmentation, short implants, and tilted implants have been used for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla. In recent years, zygomatic implants have emerged as a graftless rehabilitation technique. However, few studies compare zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation with other fixed rehabilitation techniques. The existing body of evidence on zygomatic implants is largely based on clinical and disease-oriented outcomes.

Methods

A network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation with the other rehabilitation techniques. Experimental and observational studies comparing different implant-assisted fixed rehabilitation in adults with atrophic maxilla will be included. The primary and secondary outcomes will be patient’s satisfaction and quality of life respectively. Additional outcomes include the implant’s survival/success, and biological and prosthetic complications. An electronic search will be performed through various databases for articles in English and French, without time limits. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and ROBINS-I for non-randomized and observational studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and extract data. Any discrepancy between reviewers will be discussed and resolved through consensus or with the help of a third reviewer.

Pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a random effects model. I2, τ2, transitivity, subgroup/meta-regression analyses will assess and explain heterogeneity and distribution of effect modifiers. A network plot will be created to connect the different interventions directly and indirectly. Interventions will be ranked using the surface under cumulative ranking curve. Confidence in the results of the NMA will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Discussion

This study will be the first to assess the effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation for the atrophic maxilla using NMA. The evidence obtained will aid clinical decision-making and will advance the knowledge of the rehabilitation techniques for the atrophic maxilla.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42023353303.

Peer Review reports

Background

Edentulism (total tooth loss) is a serious life event and is considered to be the “final marker of disease burden for oral health” [1]. It is estimated that worldwide, 276 million people suffer from edentulism [2]. Among dental diseases, severe tooth loss has caused the highest reduction in global work productivity, amounting to $126.67 billion in 2015 [3].

One of the most important consequences of edentulism is a complex biophysical process of bone resorption that gradually progresses into an irreversible and debilitating condition of jaw atrophy [4]. In the maxilla, the bone resorption results in a short, narrow, or knife-edge residual alveolar ridge [5, 6] with low trabecular density cancellous bone and very thin or absent cortical bone [7]. In the posterior maxilla, the pneumatisation and enlargement of the maxillary sinus further reduces bone volume, which along with the bone resorption, results in a severely atrophic maxilla [8]. Conventional implant-supported fixed rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla is challenging due to inadequate bone for implant anchorage [9].

In the recent past, advances in implant dentistry have provided clinicians with several options to address the complexities of rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla [10,11,12]. Sinus augmentation with bone grafts is a commonly used technique for atrophic maxillary rehabilitation, with autogenous bone grafts being considered the gold standard [13]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported an implant survival rate of 98.7% with sinus lift and bone graft procedures in partially and completely edentulous atrophic maxilla [14]. However, this technique involves risks of complications and patient morbidity such as uncontrolled graft resorption and graft rejection, injury to the adjacent anatomic structures during graft harvesting, infection, delayed functional loading, and increased treatment costs [15]. To overcome these challenges, several graftless techniques have been proposed. These techniques are reported to be less invasive, involve less complex clinical procedures, reduce patient morbidity and treatment costs, and offer the possibility of immediate-loading, with faster rehabilitation [8, 12, 16].

Zygomatic implant rehabilitation is one of the graftless techniques that was introduced as a viable treatment option for the atrophic maxilla [16]. Tomographic studies have shown that the zygomatic bone density provides adequate anchorage of long implants to support a cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis [17]. Literature has reported high zygomatic implant survival rates that ranged from 95.2 to 100% [18]. When compared with sinus augmentation and delayed placement and conventional loading of dental implants, a randomized controlled study demonstrated shorter rehabilitation time (1.3 days versus 444.3 days) and fewer zygomatic implant and prosthesis failures at 1 year post-loading [19].

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed treatment outcomes with zygomatic implant rehabilitation [20,21,22,23]. However, the evidence does not allow optimal decision-making as it is largely based on clinical outcomes. The evidence from patient-reported outcomes is limited. Moreover, the evidence from these reviews is largely based on single-arm studies. Few studies have assessed the comparative effectiveness of zygomatic implant rehabilitation, due to which there is uncertainty as to whether zygomatic implant-fixed rehabilitation offers a distinct advantage over other techniques. The Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) offers the ability to overcome this limitation as it can estimate treatment effects of multiple treatments in a single analysis when head-to-head comparisons are scarce by combining direct evidence from clinical studies and indirect evidence from within the study network [24]. Furthermore, a hierarchy or “rank” for the techniques can be established [25]. The treatment rankings along with certainty estimates and level of evidence can better aid in the interpretation of the results that could help clinicians in their routine clinical practice and decision-making [26].

Objectives

This systematic review aims to answer the following question: in patients with edentulous atrophic maxilla, how effective is zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation in comparison to other implant-supported fixed rehabilitation techniques with regard to patient-reported outcomes, implant survival, complications, and treatment costs?

Methods

This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), under registration number CRD42023353303.

The protocol has been prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, 2015 (PRISMA-P) [27] (Additional file 1).

The network meta-analysis will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA-NMA extension statement [28].

Eligibility criteria

The following criteria will be used to identify studies to be included in this review.

Study design

Experimental studies (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials) and observational studies that compare outcomes of interest of at least two fixed rehabilitation techniques for atrophic maxilla will be included. Review articles, expert opinions, case reports, case series and publications using duplicated data will be excluded.

Participants

Studies that enrolled completely edentulous adults (above 18 years of age) with an atrophic maxilla (< 8 mm bone in the posterior maxilla) will be included.

Interventions

Zygomatic implants (combination of 2 zygomatic implants with regular implants in the anterior maxilla, or 4 zygomatic implants placed bilaterally).

Comparators

  1. 1)

    Conventional or short implants with sinus elevation with or without bone grafts,

  2. 2)

    Tilted implants,

  3. 3)

    Any additional relevant techniques found during the literature search will be included in the review.

Outcome(s)

The primary outcome will be patient satisfaction. We will use data measured with validated instruments such as the visual analog scale (VAS) or Likert scale.

The secondary outcome will be quality of life, which has been assessed using validated instruments.

Additional outcomes include implant survival and success, and biological and prosthetic complications.

Time

Studies that have assessed outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after functional loading will be included in the review.

Setting

Studies conducted in any dental care centers will be included.

Language

Articles in English and French will be included in the review.

Information sources

A comprehensive electronic search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos will be performed without limits on publication date. In addition, 3 clinical trial registries, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched to identify completed and ongoing studies. Authors will be contacted to inquire about the status of their studies if the electronic search fails to identify them. Furthermore, hand-searching in relevant journals and reference sections of the included articles and previous systematic reviews on the topic will be conducted to identify any studies missed by the electronic search. To maximize the sensitivity of the search, no language restrictions will be applied to the search strategy.

Search strategy

A draft version of the search strategy has been developed by members of the research team with expertise in systematic reviews and relevant clinical experience, and an expert librarian at McGill University, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), EMTREEs, and relevant text words. A draft of the MEDLINE search strategy can be found in Additional file 2. The finalized draft will be adapted to other databases using proper syntax, controlled vocabulary, and subject headings.

Data selection

The identified articles from search results will be transferred to EndNote X9 software (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA). Title and abstracts will be screened using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts using the inclusion criteria. The process of data selection will be pilot-tested in 10% of randomly selected included studies. Reviewer’s agreement on study eligibility will be assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Any discrepancy between reviewers will be discussed and resolved through consensus. The opinion of a third reviewer will be sought if consensus cannot be reached. Studies that do not fulfill the review criteria will be eliminated.

Data collection process

Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently using a pre-established, electronic data extraction sheet in Microsoft Excel. The data extraction sheet will be pilot-tested on 5 randomly selected studies and amended if required. To ensure consistency, the data extraction process will be calibrated wherein two reviewers will independently extract data from 10% of the included studies. Any discrepancies in the extracted data will be discussed and a consensus will be reached before proceeding with the data extraction from the remaining studies.

Data items

The following data will be extracted: title, authors, year of publication, journal, study design, patients’ characteristics (age, sex, comorbidities, smoking habits), number of participants, height of the residual ridge, interventions, comparisons, implant characteristics (length and diameter, surface treatment, morphological features), sinus elevation technique, type of bone grafts, opposing dentition, follow-up time, functional loading time, outcomes (patient satisfaction, quality of life, implant survival rate, complications), and study authors’ main conclusions. Study authors will be contacted to obtain any missing data. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved through discussions and any unresolved issues will be adjudicated by a third reviewer.

Outcomes and prioritization

The primary outcome will be patient satisfaction.

The secondary outcome will be quality of life.

This review will focus on patient-reported outcomes as evidence from these outcomes is important in assessing the benefits and harm of treatment, assisting with treatment selection, and facilitating communication [29]. Evidence from patient-reported outcomes is crucial to develop strong recommendations (Level A, Strength of Evidence Taxonomy (SORT)) [30] and allow optimal clinical decision-making.

The additional outcomes will be clinical outcomes: implant survival rate, biological and prosthetic complications, and treatment costs.

Risk of bias assessment

Two reviewers will independently assess each study. Disagreements between the reviewers over the risk of bias in particular studies will be resolved by discussion, with the involvement of a third reviewer, whenever necessary. The Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for Randomized trials, Version 2.0 (RoB 2) [31] will be used to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials under the five domains: (1) bias arising from the randomization process; (2) bias due to deviations from intended interventions; (3) bias due to missing outcome data; (4) bias in the measurement of the outcome; (5) bias in the selection of the reported result. The risk of bias will be classified under each domain as (1) low risk of bias (low risk of bias for all domains); (2) some concerns (some concerns for at least one domain but not at high risk of bias for any domain); (3) high risk of bias (high risk of bias in at least one domain or have some concerns for multiple domains that may substantially lower the confidence in the result).

For non-randomized and observational studies, the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies–of Interventions (ROBINS-I) will be used [32] to assess the methodological quality under the following 7 domains: confounding, selection bias, bias in measurement classification of interventions, bias due to departures from the intended interventions, bias due to missing data, bias in measurement of outcomes and bias in selection of the reported result. The studies will be rated as low risk (low risk of bias for all domains), moderate risk (low or moderate risk of bias for all domains), serious risk (serious risk of bias in at least one domain, but not at critical risk of bias in any domain), and critical risk of bias (critical risk of bias in at least one domain). If there is insufficient information, the risk of bias will be classified as “no information”.

Data synthesis

The descriptive synthesis will follow the guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [33]. Text and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies. Data synthesis will be performed on the assumption of transitivity, i.e., all studies are similar, except for the type of intervention, and that the participants are jointly randomizable (eligible to receive any treatment in the network). In addition, the effect modifiers (factors that induce heterogeneity and influence the treatment outcomes, e.g., age and gender) have to be evenly distributed across the network. Clinical advice will be sought to assess the plausibility of this assumption. Transitivity will be evaluated by assessing the distribution of the effect modifiers between the treatment groups using boxplots or percentages. The possible violation of transitivity due to factors such as functional loading time, and types of bone grafts will be evaluated through subgroup and meta-regression analyses.

The unit of analysis will be the patient, for patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes, and each implant for implant survival.

We will calculate the pooled odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and pooled standard mean difference for continuous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval.

The analysis will consider three follow-up points: an early period (up to 2 years after immediate loading), a medium period (2–5 years), and a late period(> 5 years). All analyses will be performed using the R package (R Project for Statistical Computing, The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria).

Pairwise meta-analysis

Standard meta-analysis for each pairwise comparison of the interventions will be performed using the random effects model. As this review will classify studies by surgical techniques, substantial heterogeneity is anticipated. Methodological heterogeneity will be explored by assessing the study quality. The clinical heterogeneity of the studies will be assessed by checking the baseline characteristics of patients, surgical approaches, types of bone grafts, implant characteristics, and time to function (immediate vs delayed loading). Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using visual inspection of the forest plots and quantified using the I2 and the tau square (τ2) statistic. I2 value < 40% suggests a non-significant amount of heterogeneity, 30% to 60% suggest moderate heterogeneity, 50% to 90% suggest substantial heterogeneity, and 75% to 100% represent considerable heterogeneity [34]. A τ 2 > 1 suggests substantial heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of the studies > 75% will be explored in subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis.

Network meta-analysis

NMAs with random effects will be performed using the netmeta package in R, version 4.1.3. A network plot will be created to connect the different interventions directly and indirectly. The network plot consists of nodes, the size of which will be proportional to the number of participants for each intervention, and edges with thickness proportional to the number of studies comparing two interventions. The interventions will be clubbed under the following groups: zygomatic implants (combination of two zygomatic implants with regular implants in the anterior maxilla or four zygomatic implants); conventional implants with or without sinus elevation and bone augmentation; short dental implants with or without bone augmentation; and tilted implants. Studies that are not connected will be excluded from the network.

Consistency of the NMA, which refers to the statistical agreement between direct and indirect comparisons will be assessed. We will assess inconsistency for the network through the local and global approaches using the netsplit and decomp.design functions respectively.

Separate NMA of randomized and non-randomized studies will be performed to assess the agreement between them. Interventions will be ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes.

Subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity and/or inconsistency. If heterogeneity/inconsistency is identified, their possible sources based on the effect modifiers will be explored. If sufficient data is present, we will investigate the treatment effect based on the following factors: patient characteristics (e.g., gender, age), surgical approach, type of bone grafts, time to function (immediate or delayed loading), and study quality.

Level of evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to rate the certainty of evidence from the NMA [35, 36] based on the ratings of direct and indirect evidence. Based on the recent recommendations by the GRADE working group [36], the direct evidence will be assessed through the following criteria: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias. The certainty of direct estimates will inform the indirect estimates along with intransitivity. The certainty of network estimates will be down-rated in the presence of considerable imprecision or incoherence. The level of evidence will be classified under four levels: high level, moderate level, low level, and very low. The GRADE assessment will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Any disagreement will be discussed and resolved by consensus, or with the help of a third reviewer if necessary.

Publication bias

We will use the “comparison-adjusted funnel plot” to identify possible small-study effects in the NMA [37].

Differences between the protocol and the review

Any deviations from the protocol due to unanticipated issues will be reported in the final review.

Discussion

The atrophic edentulous maxilla bears both clinical and economic implications to the patient and the clinician. As a result, newer, innovative techniques have been developed that are aimed at minimizing complications, ensuring patient comfort with a minimal time to function, and enhancing overall quality of life.

To date, there is a lack of definitive evidence regarding the most effective implant rehabilitation technique for the atrophic maxilla [16]. It is therefore crucial to comprehensively examine all existing evidence to guide clinicians and inform patients to determine the optimal technique for rehabilitation.

Previous reviews have indicated that zygomatic implant rehabilitation could meet the treatment requirements of patients [11, 16, 18]. Nonetheless, we anticipate that this network meta-analysis (NMA) will enhance the existing evidence by directly and indirectly comparing this technique with other treatment modalities.

This review will evaluate patient satisfaction as the primary outcome as it is considered a valid measure and an important predictor of treatment success and quality of care [38]. In contrast to clinical outcomes such as implant survival, morbidity, and complications, patient satisfaction reflects the patients’ perception of the treatment relative to their expectations and is dependent on the dentist-patient relationship, treatment affordability, and psychological and clinical factors [39, 40].

Though it is recommended that NMAs include RCTs for the best evidence, our review will include observational studies that can better reflect patient experiences and provide real-world evidence [41, 42]. Moreover, additional data can be obtained on competing therapies particularly when RCTs may not be feasible due to the complexity of the procedures [43]. Evidence from these studies can complement the evidence from RCTs and improve the precision of findings [44]. Another advantage is that adverse events, complications, and unintended effects of treatment can be better determined through these study designs [45]. However, the inclusion of observational studies in this review presents a potential limitation, as considerable heterogeneity between the primary studies might be encountered. Furthermore, these studies are susceptible to reduced internal validity due to the increased risk bias and confounding [46]. To address these limitations, both qualitative and quantitative assessments of heterogeneity will be performed with subgroup and meta-regression where required. The risk of bias will be carefully assessed and studies that account for confounding will be included in this review.

Implications of the review

To our knowledge, no previous systematic review with NMA has been conducted on rehabilitation techniques for the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Given the burden of the condition, particularly in the elderly, this NMA will provide an important evidence base for clinicians to inform treatment decisions and direct future research in this field.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

NMA:

Network meta-analysis

PRISMA-P:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement

RCT:

Randomised controlled trials

ROBINS-I:

Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions

SORT:

Strength of Evidence Taxonomy

SUCRA:

Surface under the cumulative ranking curve

References

  1. Emami E, de Souza RF, Kabawat M, Feine JS. The impact of edentulism on oral and general health. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:498305. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664508/.

  2. Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. J Dent Res. 2017;96(4):380–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Righolt AJ, Jevdjevic M, Marcenes W, Listl S. Global-, regional-, and country-level economic impacts of dental diseases in 2015. J Dent Res. 2018;97(5):501–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bodic F, Hamel L, Lerouxel E, Baslé MF, Chappard D. Bone loss and teeth. Joint Bone Spine. 2005;72(3):215–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Okumura N, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Kurokawa K, Nomura S. Influence of maxillary cortical bone thickness, implant design and implant diameter on stress around implants: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2010;54(3):133–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pietrokovski J, Starinsky R, Arensburg B, Kaffe I. Morphologic characteristics of bony edentulous jaws. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(2):141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Juodzbalys G, Kubilius M. Clinical and radiological classification of the jawbone anatomy in endosseous dental implant treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013;4(2):e2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Aalam AA, Krivitsky A, Kurtzman GM. Decision making with zygomatic and pterygoid dental implants in the severely atrophic maxilla: a narrative review. Dentistry Review. 2022;2(3):100054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raghoebar GM, Onclin P, Boven GC, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(S21):307–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ting M, Rice JG, Braid SM, Lee CYS, Suzuki JB. Maxillary sinus augmentation for dental implant rehabilitation of the edentulous ridge: a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews. Implant Dent. 2017;26(3):438–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Alández J, González-Martín O, et al. Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the Zygomatic Success Code 2000. Periodontology. 2014;66(1):41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e474–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tiwana PS, Kushner GM, Haug RH. Maxillary sinus augmentation. Dent Clin North Am. 2006;50(3):409–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lie SAN, Claessen RMMA, Leung CAW, Merten HA, Kessler PAWH. Non-grafted versus grafted sinus lift procedures for implantation in the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(1):122–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, Khurshid Z, Shavandi A, Ratnayake J. Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: a review of current trends and developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10):3007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Al-Nawas B, Aghaloo T, Aparicio C, Bedrossian E, Brecht L, Brennand-Roper M, 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kato Y, Kizu Y, Tonogi M, Ide Y, Yamane GY. Internal structure of zygomatic bone related to zygomatic fixture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(9):1325–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramezanzade S, Yates J, Tuminelli FJ, Keyhan SO, Yousefi P, Lopez-Lopez J. Zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxilla: an overview of current systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;43(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Davó R, Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Marti-Pages C, Ferrer-Fuertes A, et al. 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):145–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorusso F, Conte R, Inchingolo F, Festa F, Scarano A. Survival rate of zygomatic implants for fixed oral maxillary rehabilitations: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between zygomatic and regular implants. Dent J (Basel). 2021;9(4):38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gutiérrez Muñoz D, Obrador Aldover C, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, González Menéndez H, Lorrio Castro J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, et al. Survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(7):601.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brennand Roper M, Vissink A, Dudding T, Pollard A, Gareb B, Malevez C, et al. Long-term treatment outcomes with zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(10):1949–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T. Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(1):103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Heels-Andsell D, Alhazzani W, Thabane L, et al. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;2(349):g7647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;1(9):353–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(1):59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;28(366):l4898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;12(355):i4919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Our guidance - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York [Internet]. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

  34. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses [Internet]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

  35. Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;24(349):g5630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, Siemieniuk RA, Furukawa TA, Rochwerg B, et al. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;1(93):36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods. 2012;3(2):161–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Menassa M, de Grandmont P, Audy N, Durand R, Rompré P, Emami E. Patients’ expectations, satisfaction, and quality of life with immediate loading protocol. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2016;27(1):83–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cella D, Hahn EA, Jensen SE, Butt Z, Nowinski CJ, Rothrock N, et al. Types of patient-reported outcomes [Internet]. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Performance Measurement. RTI Press; 2015 [cited 2022 Apr 7]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424381/

  40. da Cunha MC, dos Santos JFF, dos Santos MBF, Marchini L. Patients’ expectation before and satisfaction after full-arch fixed implant-prosthesis rehabilitation. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2015;41(3):235–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jenkins DA, Hussein H, Martina R, Dequen-O’byrne P, Abrams KR, Bujkiewicz S. Methods for the inclusion of real-world evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Reeves BC, Akl EA, Santesso N, Spencer FA, et al. Non-randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synt Methods. 2013;4(1):49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hilton Boon M, Burns J, Craig P, Griebler U, Heise TL, VittalKatikireddi S, et al. Value and challenges of using observational studies in systematic reviews of public health interventions. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(4):548–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(10):1203–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Vandenbroucke JP. What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? CMAJ. 2006;174(5):645–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Metelli S, Chaimani A. Challenges in meta-analyses with observational studies. BMJ Ment Health. 2020;23(2):83–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Réseau de Recherche en Santé Buccodentaire et Osseuse (RSBO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Anisha Rodrigues, Samer Abi-Nader, Amal Idrissi Janati & Elham Emami

  2. Faculty of Dental Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Robert Durand

  3. Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Pierre Rompré

  4. Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Saadet Atsu

  5. Schulich Library, Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

    Martin Morris

Authors
  1. Anisha Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samer Abi-Nader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre Rompré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amal Idrissi Janati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saadet Atsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elham Emami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AR and EE conceptualized and designed the study. They drafted the initial manuscript. They will play an essential role in data extraction, data analysis, and interpretation of the results. SAN, RD, AIJ, SA, and PR were involved in the protocol development and will contribute to the data analysis and data interpretation. MM, the expert librarian at McGill University, helped develop the search strategy. All the authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elham Emami.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

13643_2024_2561_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Additional file 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, 2015 (PRISMA-P) [27].

Additional file 2. Search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, A., Abi-Nader, S., Durand, R. et al. Effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation for the atrophic edentulous maxilla: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Syst Rev 13, 146 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02561-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02561-w

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053