Zigoma implantları derleme sını engelleyebilmektedir. Zigoma implantları doğru bir şekilde yerleştirildiğinde yüksek başarı oranı (95.21%) (19) vardır. Zigoma implantları uygulanan hastalar immediat yüklemeyi müm- kün kılar. Greftleme sonrası uzun bekleyiş süresi yoktur. Aşırı atrofik maksillası olan hastalara gü- venle uygulanabilir. Kaynaklar 1. Collins TA, Brown GK, Johnson N, Massey JA, Nunn BD. Team management of atrophic edentulism with au- togenous inlay, veneer, and split grafts and endosseous implants: case reports. Quintessence Int. 1995. 2. Keller EE. Reconstruction of the severely atrophic edentulous mandible with endosseous implants. A 10-year longitudinal study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995. doi:10.1016/0278-2391(95)90231-7 3. Lekholm U, Zarb G. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue inte- grated prostheses: osseointegration in cinical dentistry. Quintessence. 1985. 4. Sjöström M, Sennerby L, Nilson H, Lundgren S. Recons- truction of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with free iliac crest grafts and implants: A 3-year report of a pros- pective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00034.x 5. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A syste- matic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation: Part I: Lateral approach. In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ; 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1600- 051X.2008.01272.x 6. Davó R, David L. Quad Zygoma: Technique and Realities. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019. doi:10.1016/j. coms.2018.12.006 7. Aghaloo TL, Mardirosian M, Delgado B. Controversies in Implant Surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.coms.2017.07.007 8. Ahlgren F, Størksen K, Tornes K. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796285. 9. Brånemark P I, Svensson B, Van Steenberghe D. Tenyear survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Brånemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Imp- lants Res. 1995. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060405.x 10. Pellegrino G, Tarsitano A, Basile F, Pizzigallo A, Marc- hetti C. Computer-Aided Rehabilitation of Maxillary Oncological Defects Using Zygomatic Implants: A De- fect-Based Classification. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.08.020 11. Bedrossian E. Rescue implant concept: The expan- ded use of the zygoma implant in the graftless so- lutions. Dent Clin North Am. 2011. doi:10.1016/j. cden.2011.07.009 12. Lesley D, Aparicio C, Alandez J. Indications and cont- ra-indications for the use of the zygomatic implants. In: Zygomatic Implants : The Anatomy-Guided Approach. ; 2012. 13. Al-Nawas B, Wegener J, Bender C, Wagner W. Critical soft tissue parameters of the zygomatic implant. J Clin Peri- odontol. 2004. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00505.x 14. Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Abrahamsson P, Sennerby L. Evaluation of 31 zygomatic implants and 74 regular dental implants used in 16 patients for prosthetic re- construction of the atrophic maxilla with cross-arch fixed bridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005. do- i:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00060.x 15. Stella JP, Warner MR. Sinus slot technique for simp- lification and improved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(6):889-893. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/11151591. 16. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, et al. Extrasinus zy- gomatic implants: Three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00130.x 17. Aparicio C. A proposed classification for zygomatic implant patients based on the zygoma anatomy gu- ided approach (ZAGA): A cross-sectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011. 18. Davó R, Pons O. 5-year outcome of cross-arch prosthe- ses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic implants: A prospective case series. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015. 19. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and Complications of Zygomatic Implants: An Updated Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016. do- i:10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.166 20. De Moraes EJ. Closure of oroantral communication with buccal fat pad flap in zygomatic implant surgery: A case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2008. 21. Jensen OT, Adams M, Cottam JR, Ringeman J. Occult Peri-implant Oroantral Fistulae: Posterior Maxillary Pe- ri-implantitis/Sinusitis of Zygomatic or Dental Implant Origin. Treatment and Prevention with Bone Morp- hogenetic Protein-2/Absorbable Collagen Sponge Sinus Grafting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013. doi:10.11607/jomi.te32 22. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, et al. Zygomatic Implants Placed Using the Zygomatic Anatomy-Gui- ded Approach versus the Classical Technique: A Pro- posed System to Report Rhinosinusitis Diagnosis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014. doi:10.1111/cid.12047 Doç. Dr. Cem Üngör Doç. Dr. Cem Üngör, İstanbul Üni- versitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’ni 2004 yılında bitirdi. Ankara Üniversi- tesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı’nda 2006-2011 yıllarında “Maksiler sinüs ogmentasyonunun ses kalitesi üzerine etkisinin akustik analizler ile değerlendirilmesi” konulu Doktora tezini tamamlamıştır. 2011 yılından beri Karadeniz Teknik Üni- versitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Ağız Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı’nda görev yapmaktadır. Onbir tanesi SCI endeksli dergide olmak üzere, 12 yayını mevcuttur. Bu güne kadar yayın- ları toplam 102 atıf almıştır. 2014 yılında Doçent olmuştur. Evli ve 2 çocuk sahibidir. cemngr@yahoo.com implants 1_2020 43