Autogenous bone grafting with conventional implants vs zygomatic implants for atrophic maxillae: a retrospective study of the oral health-related quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Autogenous bone grafting (ABG)-combined or not with Le Fort I osteotomy (LFIO)-and zygomatic implants (ZI) are two reliable techniques for the fixed rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. ZI allow a reduced treatment duration with no need to graft, immediate loading and in principle less morbidity. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare these two protocols on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). We also discussed implant and prosthetic survival rates, and biological complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who benefited from ZI or ABG with conventional implants (CI) for a fixed maxillary rehabilitation, from November 2011 to April 2019, were included: 21 patients in the ABG group and 22 in the ZI group. OHRQoL was evaluated postoperatively by OHIP-14 questionnaire. RESULTS: OHIP-14 median scores were respectively 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-13.0) and 6.0 (IQR 3.0-10.0) without significant difference (p = 0.97). Implant/prosthetic survival rates were 97.9%/100% and 97.1%/95.5%. Biological complications rates were 33.3% and 36.4% without significant difference (p = 0.83). DISCUSSION: The type of surgery or prosthesis does not seem to affect final OHRQoL, implant and prosthetic survival rates or biological complications rates.