Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019. RESULTS: Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation.