322 Volume 103 Issue 5

ly with 1% chlorhexidine gel (Corso- REFERENCES 6. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bössmann K,

dyl Gel; GlaxoSmithKline Consumer
Healthcare), again using a syringe
with a plastic cannula (Fig. 1).
4. Connect the previous or a new
implant component to the implant
using a torque device and the torque
recommended by the implant manu-
facturer.
5. Remove any excess chlorhexi-
dine gel that is extruded from the
implant cavity during insertion of the
implant component by suction (Fig.
2).
6. Rinse chlorhexidine gel rem-
nants with water spray.
7. Complete subsequent proce-
dures.
1. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS,
Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et
al. Persistent acute inflammation at the
implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res
2003;82:232-7.
2. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, van
Steenberghe D. Microbial penetration
along the implant components of the
Brånemark system. An in vitro study. Clin
Oral Implants Res 1994;5:239-44.
3. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK,
Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size
of the microgap on crestal bone changes
around titanium implants. A histometric
evaluation of unloaded non-submerged im-
plants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol
2001;72:1372-83.
4. Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial
colonization of the internal part of two-
stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral
Implants Res 1993;4:158-61.
5. Besimo CE, Guindy JS, Lewetag D, Meyer
J. Prevention of bacterial leakage into and
from prefabricated screw-retained crowns
on implants in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 1999;14:654-60.
Kern M. In vitro evaluation of bacterial
leakage along the implant-abutment inter-
face of different implant systems. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:875-81.
7. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Açil Y, Terheyden H,
Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage
at implant-abutment connection--in vitro
investigation of tightness of internal conical
implant-abutment connections against
endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig
2009 Jul 23. [Epub ahead of print]
8. Paolantonio M, Perinetti G, D’Ercole S,
Graziani F, Catamo G, Sammartino G, et
al. Internal decontamination of dental im-
plants: an in vivo randomized microbiologic
6-month trial on the effects of a chlorhexi-
dine gel. J Periodontol 2008;79:1419-25.
Corresponding author:
Dr Matthias Kern
Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics
and Dental Materials
School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts Uni-
versity at Kiel
Arnold-Heller Strasse 16
24105 Kiel
GERMANY
Fax: +49 431 597 2860
E-mail: mkern@proth.uni-kiel.de

Copyright © 2010 by the Editorial Council for

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature

A retrospective analysis of 110 zygomatic implants in a single-stage immediate loading
protocol

Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:335-41.

Purpose: This clinical study using a specific technique was carried out to determine the clinical effectiveness of zygo-
matic implants under an immediate loading protocol.

Materials and Methods: All patients treated between May 2000 and October 2006 who received zygomatic implants
were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients were treated using the same surgical and restorative protocol.
The following data were recorded: gender, age, type of implant, number of implants placed, dimensions of implants,
and implant and prosthesis survival.

Results: Fifty-six consecutive patients (29 women, 27 men; mean age of 60.58 years [range, 38.78 to 84.01]) were
treated. All were in need of oral reconstruction and had maxillary atrophy that warranted zygomatic implant place-
ment. One hundred ten zygomatic implants were placed in these 56 patients. Four of the 110 zygomatic implants
failed, resulting in a cumulative survival rate of 96.37% with follow-up data no less than 9 months and in excess of 5
years. All four failures were turned-surface zygomatic implants. There have been no failures to date with the titanium
anodized-surface zygomatic implants. The prosthesis survival rate was 100.0%.

Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis of 56 patients receiving 110 zygomatic implants, the survival rate of zygo-
matic implants was in excess of 96% over a period of 9 months to 5 years. This technique resulted in a stable and
predictable prosthetic reconstruction.

Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Kern and Harder