Abstract:Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and determine clinical outcomes and survival rates of straight and extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants (20–24 mm lengths) placed for immediate (up to 72 h post‐operative) or delayed rehabilitation (4 months post‐operative) of severely atrophic maxillae. Prosthetic treatment consisted of interim and definitive implant‐supported fixed implant‐supported prostheses with up to 3 years of function. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted of 38 patients (five dropped out; final total was 33), treated between 2017 and 2019 in a private practice. Extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants and conventional endosseous straight implants (Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa) with (fixed) full arch prostheses were used to restore patients with edentulous maxillae immediately (within 72 hs) or delayed (4 months). ELSA implants have subcrestal angulations of 24° and 36° of the restorative platforms, external hexagon crestal anti‐rotation abutment connections, and lengths between 18 and 26 mm. Implant loading was determined by implant insertion torque values (as determined on the surgical units); 120 Ncm was the threshold level for immediate loading. Clinical and radiographic examinations were done that recorded the clinical outcomes of implants and prostheses. SPSS was used to process the data. Results Thirty‐three patients and 187 implants were included with follow‐up periods of at least 12 months (range 12–36 months). The mean age of the study population was 62.6 ± 8.4 years old (at the time of implant placement). Thirty‐three patients (86.8%) were followed for 12 months; 13 patients (39.4%) were followed for 24–35 months; 9 patients (27.3%) were followed for 36 months. In total, 13 implants in six patients failed secondary to sinus infections. Mean bone levels (MBLs) were respectively: 0.88 ± 2.12 mm at loading, –1.53 ± 2.03 mm at 12 months, –2.26 ± 1.45 mm at 24 months, and –2.54 ± 1.46 mm at 36 months. The ELSA implants showed significantly lower (p = 0.014) MBL at 36 months than did the conventional implants. One hundred thirty‐seven implants were placed and loaded within 72 h; 50 implants were placed and loaded 4 months post placement. The combined implant survival rates were 93.0% at 12 months, 91.1% at 24 months, and 100% at 36 months. The ELSA implants showed significantly lower (p = 0.014) MBLs at 36 months when compared to the conventional implants. Conclusions The results of this retrospective clinical chart review indicated that the use of ELSA implants placed into anterior maxillae and nasal crests with accentuated distal tilts (>30°) and simultaneous sinus augmentation provided favorable outcomes for prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with severe atrophic maxillae. ELSA implants placed with simultaneous sinus augmentation are an alternative option to zygomatic implants (ZI) when immediate loading is prescribed. Sinus infections were thought to be the proximate causes of all implant failures. Further long‐term clinical studies are warranted with larger patient populations.

Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Zygomatic Implant-Supported Rehabilitation of Atrophic Maxillary Arches - A Prospective Study

Clinical and Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Rehabilitation of Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla Using Six Implants Placed Simultaneously with Bilateral Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Case Series.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Success and Patient-Related Outcomes of Zygomatic Implants in Atrophic Maxillary Ridges

Analysis of Long-Term Success and Biological Complications in Zygomatic Implant-Supported Prostheses

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

5-year outcome of cross-arch prostheses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic implants: A prospective case series

20 Years of Clinical Evolution in Zygomatic Implant Rehabilitation: Long-Term Outcomes and Current States

Revolutionizing Maxillary Rehabilitation: Zygomatic Implants Addressing Severe Alveolar Atrophy

The Rehabilitation of Partially Edentulous Maxilla With Unilateral Zygomatic Implants: A Retrospective Study up to 23 Years Follow‐Up

Maxillary rehabilitation after zygomatic implant sequelae using custom subperiosteal implants: A case study

Bone Regeneration and Soft Tissue Enhancement Around Zygomatic Implants: Retrospective Case Series

To Evaluate the Effect of Zygomatic Area As Bearing Seat and Zygomatic Osseointegrated Implant from Oral Cavity Ofmaxillary Obturator Prostheses by Mechanics

Assessment of different treatment alternatives for patients with total maxillectomy

Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short implants and standard long implants with sinus lift for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior maxilla

Using the Nasopalatine Canal for Enhanced Distribution in Severely Atrophic Maxilla With Immediate Loading of Zygomatic Implants: An 8-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: indications, evaluation of surgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes

Immediate rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae using conventional and extended length subcrestal angulated (ELSA) implants: A retrospective analysis of 187 implants in 33 patients with up to three years of function

Zygomatic Implants in a Patient With History of Mucormycosis: A Case Report

Descriptions of the Technique and Short-Term Outcomes in Three Cases

Short implants versus bone augmentation in atrophic maxillae: Five‐year post‐loading results from a RCT

A Retrospective Multicentric Study of 52 Nasal and Trans-nasal Implants in 31 Severe Atrophic Patients to Reduce Anterior Cantilever Bending in Full Arch Implant-supported Fixed Rehabilitation