Custom Fabricated Subperiosteal Implants for Sectional Rehabilitation of Severely Atrophic Maxillae: A Technical Note
Luigi Angelo Vaira, MD, PhD,* Andrea Biglio, MD, DDS,y Giovanni Salzano, MD,z Alberto Pispero, DDS,x Jerome R. Lechien, MD, PhD,k ** and Giacomo De Riu, MD
Severe atrophy in isolated posterior maxillary sectors poses challenges for dental rehabilitation, especially in partially dentate patients where traditional graftless techniques are unsuitable. This study retrospec tively analyzed the outcomes of sectional rehabilitation in 16 consecutive patients with Cawood and Howell class V to VI atrophy treated with 21 custom fabricated subperiosteal implants. Patients were followed for a median of 36 months (interquartile range: 24 to 48). Implant survival and success rates at 1 and 5 years were 95.2%, with minimal complications. Radiological assessments showed no significant bone resorption beneath abutments (mean: 0.18 mm at 1 year). Soft tissue health improved over time, with bleeding on probing affecting 10% of abutments at 6 months and only 2.5% at 4 years. These findings suggest that sub- periosteal implants offer a viable graftless solution for sectional rehabilitation in partially dentate patients, combining high survival rates with favorable radiological and soft tissue outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm long-term effectiveness.
(C) 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-n
Innovation
In recent years, subperiosteal implants have garnered renewed interest. In 2017, Mommaerts introduced a new generation of custom manufactured implants, which take advantage of CAD/CAM technology and laser melting.¹ These advances allow for the production of custom-made implants based on computed tomography (CT) scans and diagnostic wax-ups, eliminating the need for direct bone impressions.² The design of these implants has undergone significant evolution, informed by stress-shielding simulations and finite element analysis (FEA), with the goal of achieving rigid fixation and optimal distribution of masticatory forces on the maxillary resistance pillars.² ³
As a result, several reports over recent years have documented successful full-arch rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae using these implants. The outcomes have been promising, demonstrating an implant survival rate exceeding 95% in the short to medium term.⁴–⁸ One key advantage of these rehabilitations lies in enabling immediate loading for cases of severe bone atrophy without requiring preimplant regenerative surgery.
However, the literature on sectional rehabilitations of the atrophic maxilla with subperiosteal implants remains scarce. To date, there is insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of subperiosteal implants in such cases, as most of the research focuses on full-arch rehabilitations.⁹
Sectional rehabilitations of the maxilla, though, are frequently requested by patients who do not require treatment of the anterior maxillary sectors or the extraction of the first or molars. In these situations, graftless techniques such as pterygoid or zygomatic implants may not be technically feasible due to the constraints imposed by the anatomical structures of the maxilla.¹⁰ The implant’s emergence in these graftless techniques is often limited by the anatomy of the region.¹¹ In such cases, custom manufactured subperiosteal implants may represent the only graftless alternative to avoid bone regeneration procedures.
For this reason, at the Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of the University of Sassari (Sassari, Italy), rehabilitation with custom-made subperiosteal implants is offered to all patients with Cawood and Howell class V and VI posterior maxillary atrophy who specifically request a graftless, immediate-loading solution, having declined bone regeneration procedures and traditional delayed implant protocols.
As previously described,⁷ ¹²–¹⁴ all patients undergoing this type of rehabilitation are subjected to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of both the maxilla and mandible, with scans featuring a slice thickness of 0.1 to 0.3 mm and covering a wide field of view, including the entire maxilla and cheekbones. The scans are conducted using a radiological template embedded with radiopaque markers, developed based on prosthetic planning. Digital impressions of the dental arches and the radiological template used during the CBCT are also obtained. The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine files (DICOM) and stereolithographic (STL) files are then sent to B&B Dental (B&B Dental, San Pietro in Casale, Italy), the company responsible for fabricating the implant.
The CBCT DICOM files are processed using B&B Dental’s GS software (B&B Dental, San Pietro in Casale, Italy) to create a 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the bone structure, refined to remove scatter and other artifacts. The STL files of the dental arches and diagnostic wax-up are integrated with the 3D jaw model. The consolidated 3D files are imported into Meshmixer software (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA) for designing the implant, following the surgeon’s guidance.
While our protocol does not include FEA, the implant design used is based on extensive FEA research previously conducted on the upper maxilla. These studies have demonstrated the efficacy of specific designs in optimizing load distribution and minimizing stress at the bone-implant interface, particularly under oblique and lateral forces.³ ⁴ ¹⁵
In addition, the angulation of the abutments is determined through prosthetic planning to align with the functional occlusion. This approach ensures that the abutments align with the long axis of the prosthetic crowns, minimizing stress concentrations and promoting even force distribution across the implant framework.³ ⁴ ¹⁵
Each implant features 2 arms with osteosynthesis screw holes—one on the nasomaxillary pillar and the other on the maxillomalar pillar, extending to the anterior face of the zygomatic arch. Screw placement is based on bone thickness, with a minimum of 2 holes per arm. The implants are equipped with integrated multiunit abutments, designed to sit deeper in the alveolar crest slots to reduce basal bone resorption beneath the abutments. The length and orientation of the abutments are customized to align with the diagnostic wax-up and gingival thickness derived from the scans of the dental arches.
A cobalt-chrome surgical guide is produced to facilitate the preparation of alveolar crest slots. On the palatal side, abutments are reinforced by a palatal connection with a screw hole, where the underlying bone allows it.
The 3D models of the bones, gums, prostheses, and implants are then reviewed in the B&B Dental GS software for final approval by the surgeon. Once approved, the implants are manufactured using grade V titanium and double laser melting technology (MYSINT100, Sisma, Piovene Rocchette, Italy). The implants undergo sintering at 840°C for 4 hours and 500°C for 2 hours to stabilize the titanium and remove porosity without altering dimensions. Abutments are milled with precision using a 5-axis milling machine (Datron D5, Datron, Milford, NH), and the internal threads of the multiunit abutments are crafted as needed.
To ensure cleanliness, the implants are thoroughly cleaned with DOWCLENE 1601 (Dow Chemicals Corporation, Midland, MI), an organic acid, and subsequently sterilized. Templates for crest preparation are fabricated from durable cobalt-chrome. In addition, a STL resin model of the maxilla is created using a 3D printer (Stratasys Objet 30, Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN) and provided to the surgeon as a reference.
The surgery is carried out under local anesthesia supplemented with superficial intravenous sedation using diazepam. Local anesthesia is administered with articaine containing 1:100,000 adrenaline. Anesthesia of the upper front surgical field is achieved by blocking the infraorbital and zygomatic nerves through an extraoral approach. Intraoral anesthesia is applied to the upper vestibular fornix, with palatal anesthesia achieved by blocking the greater palatine and nasopalatine nerves.
A full-thickness mucosal incision is made along the alveolar crest with 2 releasing incisions at least 5 mm away from the most distal and mesial abutments. The incision is positioned 2 to 3 mm palatally to ensure sufficient keratinized gingiva could be repositioned on the vestibular side of the abutments. A full-thickness flap is raised on both the vestibular and palatal sides.
Initial dissection of the maxilla is limited to the alveolar crest to allow for the placement of the crestal preparation template. Slots for the abutment housing are prepared using the template, ensuring they reach the basal bone. If preparation extends to the sinus membrane, the membrane is carefully preserved or, if perforated, repaired using a porcine-derived collagen membrane (Geistlich Bio-Gide Perio, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland).
Further dissection is performed to expose the upper maxilla, identify and preserve the infraorbital nerve, and fully detach the nasomaxillary pillar and zygomatic buttress. If needed, the anterior insertions of the masseter muscle are released to facilitate this step. The subperiosteal implant is positioned and its fit verified. Rigid fixation is achieved using grade V titanium osteosynthesis screws (B&B Dental, San Pietro in Casale, Italy) with diameters of 2 mm. Screw lengths range from 10 to 14 mm for the zygomatic buttress, 4 to 6 mm for the nasomaxillary pillar, and 4 to 8 mm for the palate. If adequate torque cannot be achieved, a 2.3 mm diameter safety screw is used. At least 2 screws per pillar are placed to ensure adequate primary stability for immediate loading.
Once the implant is fixed, the structure is covered with resorbable membranes, cortical laminae, or, when feasible, Bichat’s fat pad is transposed to thicken the soft tissue over the vestibular aspect. The mucosal flap is passivated using periosteal releases and sutured.
Postoperatively, all patients are prescribed antibiotics (amoxicillin with clavulanic acid, 1 g twice daily for 6 days) and pain management medications. Immediate loading is performed in all cases using a fixed provisional prosthesis secured to the multiunit abutments. The definitive prosthesis is delivered 6 months postsurgery, after sufficient soft tissue conditioning. Patients are advised to maintain a soft diet for the first 15 days and to avoid hard foods until the final prosthesis was fitted.
Advantages
Custom-manufactured subperiosteal implants for sectional rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla present key advantages over existing approaches.
The most notable benefit is the ability to achieve immediate loading without requiring bone grafting or sinus augmentation, thereby reducing overall treatment time, surgical morbidity, and patient discomfort.
Unlike alternative graftless techniques, such as zygomatic and pterygoid implants, which are limited by anatomical constraints, subperiosteal implants can be customized to accommodate complex maxillary morphologies, ensuring a more predictable prosthetic outcome.
Another major advantage is the minimally invasive nature of the procedure compared to traditional full-arch rehabilitations, as it preserves residual dentition and does not necessitate extraction of noncompromised anterior teeth. In addition, the precision afforded by CAD/CAM design allows for optimal implant fit, improving primary stability and minimizing soft tissue irritation.
However, certain trade-offs must be considered. While subperiosteal implants eliminate the need for regenerative surgery, their fabrication and planning require advanced imaging and digital workflows, which may increase initial costs and logistical complexity. The technique also demands strict adherence to surgical protocols to prevent complications such as mucosal dehiscence or soft tissue inflammation.
Despite these considerations, our findings suggest that this approach provides a viable alternative for patients seeking a less invasive, graftless solution while maintaining high implant survival and success rates.
Significance
The use of custom-manufactured subperiosteal implants for sectional rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla has the potential to offer significant benefits for patient care, surgical practice, and health-care approaches.
This technique provides an alternative for patients with severe bone atrophy who are unwilling or unable to undergo traditional bone regeneration procedures or for whom other graftless solutions may not be feasible due to anatomical limitations.
By enabling immediate loading and avoiding more invasive surgeries, this approach may reduce treatment timelines and improve patient comfort.
Evidence
Between February 2018 and November 2023, 16 patients with Cawood and Howell class V and VI posterior maxillary atrophy were treated with 21 subperiosteal implants at the University Hospital of Sassari: 7 (43.7%) female and 9 (56.3%) male, mean age of 60.4 ± 6.36 years (range 51 to 73) with a median follow-up duration of 34 [interquartile range 19 to 54] months (range 12 to 73 months). Rehabilitation was unilateral in 11 (68.7%) cases and bilateral in 5 (31.3%).
Of the 21 subperiosteal implants, 2 (9.5%) were used to rehabilitate the molar region alone, while the remaining 19 (90.5%) restored both the premolar and molar areas. For these latter cases, subperiosteal implants were selected, as it was not feasible to place endosseous implants in the premolar region. In addition, the need to preserve existing teeth or anatomical constraints made distal pterygoid implant placement impossible, necessitating the use of subperiosteal implants.
No major complications were reported during surgeries. In one case, the greater palatine artery was inadvertently sectioned, but bleeding was effectively controlled. In another case, the sinus membrane was perforated and repaired using a porcine-derived collagen membrane.
Average surgical time: 48 ± 8.9 minutes (range 34–68)
Most common postoperative issue: Edema (resolved in 7–10 days)
Transient hypoesthesia: Observed in 6 cases (infraorbital nerve) and 2 cases (zygomatic nerve), resolved within 3 months
One case of surgical wound dehiscence led to implant infection and removal. This occurred in a heavy smoker where incision positioning and continued smoking contributed to flap necrosis. The site was re-treated with successful reimplantation 60 days later.
Implant survival rate at 1 and 5 years: 95.2% (95% CI: 85.3–100%)
Subject survival rate: 93.8% (95% CI: 71.7–98.9%)
Success rate (Albrektsson’s criteria): 95.2% at 1 and 5 years
Soft tissue health:
At 6 months: 10% of abutments showed grade 1 bleeding on probing (BOP)
At 12 months: 5% still showed BOP
Long-term: Only 1 abutment had persistent grade 1 BOP at 3- and 4-year follow-up
Radiological evaluation showed:
No sinusitis
No screw-related complications
No significant bone resorption
Post-op CBCT analysis:
Bone gap at 10 days: Mean 0.13 ± 0.19 mm
No significant differences at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years
Interobserver agreement: Excellent (ICC = 0.89)
Challenges
In a consensus paper by Herce-Lopez et al.⁹, the authors cautioned against the widespread use of custom-manufactured subperiosteal implants in cases of partial edentulism due to the limited availability of clinical data supporting their efficacy. The results of our experience contribute to filling this gap in the literature, providing preliminary evidence that these implants can be effectively and safely employed for sectional rehabilitations, offering a graftless alternative for patients with severe bone atrophy.
The implant survival rate of 95.2% aligns with previously reported rates for subperiosteal implants in full-arch rehabilitation,⁵–⁹ underscoring their potential reliability in sectional applications. However, recent literature highlights the evolving landscape of subperiosteal implants and underscores the variability in outcomes reported across studies.
A systematic review by Anitua et al.²⁰ reported a short-term survival rate of 97.8%, but noted soft-tissue-related complications:
Partial implant exposure (25.6%)
Persistent soft tissue infections (5.3%)
Similarly, Qoginoff et al.²¹ emphasized CAD/CAM advances but noted ongoing challenges in soft tissue health and long-term durability, especially in complex cases.
In contrast, our study reported:
No implant exposures
Minimal complications, likely due to careful planning and strict surgical technique
Key technical measures that helped prevent implant exposure:
Smoothing of transition angles between crestal and vertical arms
Abutment embedded within the bone, not resting on top
Use of Bichat’s fat pad or resorbable membranes to thicken vestibular soft tissues
Palatal incision positioning (2–3 mm) to allow vestibular repositioning of keratinized gingiva
This approach not only prevents implant exposure, but enhances mucosal sealing, reducing inflammation and bleeding on probing (BOP). At 6 months, only 10% of abutments showed mild BOP (grade 1); over time, scores improved.
Radiographic assessments showed:
No sinusitis
No screw-related complications
No significant bone resorption
To reduce long-term resorption:
The entire crestal portion of the implant should be housed in basal bone, not residual alveolar bone, which is less stable over time.²⁶
Key Limitations of this study:
No standardized success criteria for subperiosteal implants
(Albrektsson’s criteria used but were developed for endosseous implants)Short follow-up period (avg. 36 months, max. 73 months)
→ Not enough to evaluate 10+ year outcomes, where traditional subperiosteal implants often failed due to:Bone resorption
Soft tissue breakdown
Oroantral fistulas²⁷
Small sample size (16 patients, 21 implants)
→ Limits generalizability; reflects the niche nature of this patient populationRetrospective design
→ Possible selection and documentation biasHeterogeneous follow-up durations
→ May impact interpretation of time-dependent outcomes
While Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to adjust for censored data, prospective multicenter studies with standardized protocols are needed to validate findings.
Time
The widespread adoption of custom-manufactured subperiosteal implants for sectional rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla will likely follow a gradual trajectory, driven by:
Technological progress (CAD/CAM and additive manufacturing)
Long-term clinical evidence
Surgeon training and protocol standardization
Many issues associated with earlier generations (imprecise fit, high complication rates) have been resolved. Still, long-term validation (10+ years) is essential to determine:
Whether newer designs maintain their clinical effectiveness and durability
Whether they truly represent a mainstream alternative to conventional or zygomatic implantology
If supported by robust evidence and refined clinical workflows, these implants could move from niche innovation to standard practice within the next 5 to 10 years.
References
Mommaerts MY. Additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:938–940.
Gellrich NC, Zimmerer RM, Spalthoff S, et al. A customised digitally engineered solution for fixed dental rehabilitation in severe bone deficiency: A new innovative line extension in implant dentistry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1632–1638.
Mommaerts MY. Evolutionary steps in the design and biofunctionalization of the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant “AMSJI” for the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:108–114.
De Moor E, Huys SEF, van Lenthe GH, Mommaerts MY, Vander Sloten J. Mechanical evaluation of a patient-specific additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implant (AMSJI) using finite-element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51:405–411.
Cerea M, Dolcini GA. Custom-made direct metal laser sintering titanium subperiosteal implants: A retrospective clinical study on 70 patients. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:5420391.
Van den Borre C, Rinaldi M, De Neef B, et al. Patient and clinician-reported outcomes for the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant (AMSJI) in the maxilla: A prospective multicentre one-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51:243–250.
Vaira LA, Biglio A, Roy M, et al. Full-arch rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: A multicenter retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024;52:991–998.
Gellrich NC, Korn P, Neuhaus M, et al. Long-term survival of subperiosteal implants: Meta-analysis and current status of subperiosteal implants for dental rehabilitation. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2025;37:163–177.
Herce-Lopez J, Pingarron MDC, Tofe-Povedano A, et al. Customized subperiosteal implants for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws: A consensus report and literature review. Biomimetics. 2024;9:61.
Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, et al. Zygomatic implants: Indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66:41–58.
Candel-Martí E, Carrillo-García C, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla with zygomatic implants: Review. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38:653–657.
Vaira LA, Biglio A, Favro A, et al. Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior mandible with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: A cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;53:533–540.
Vaira LA, Biglio A, Salzano G, Lechien JR, De Riu G. Additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implant rehabilitation for severely atrophic maxillary molar area: A technical note. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;125:101917.
De Riu G, Soma D, Biglio A, et al. Primary reconstruction of total maxillectomy with custom-made subperiosteal implant and temporal muscle flap: A case report. Appl Sci. 2023;13:6269.
Zielinski R, Sowinski J, Piechaczek M, et al. Finite element analysis of subperiosteal implants in edentulism—on the basis of the MaI Implant® by Integra Implants®. Materials. 2023;16:7466.
Toure G, Meningaud JP. Anatomical study of the vascular territories of the maxilla: Role of the facial artery in allotransplantation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:213–218.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11–25.
Mombelli A. Clinical parameters: Biological validity and clinical utility. Periodontol 2000. 2005;39:30–39.
Van den Borre C, Rinaldi M, De Neef B, et al. Radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling after additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implantation (AMSJI) in the maxilla: A one-year follow-up study. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3542.
Anitua E, Eguia A, Staudigl C, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: A systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10:4.
Qoginoff J, Majos A, Elgalal M. The evolution of custom subperiosteal implants for treatment of partial or complete edentulism in patients with severe alveolar ridge atrophy. J Clin Med. 2024;13:3582.
Van den Borre C, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, et al. Soft tissue response and determination of underlying risk drivers for recession and mucositis after AMSJI implantation in the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2024;39:302–309.
Olate S, Unibazo A, Ravelo V, et al. Avoiding unwanted exposure of subperiosteal implants in the atrophic maxilla: Technical note. J Craniofac Surg. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000010941
Roy M, Cerea M, Hedzelek W, Vaira LA, Dorocka-Bobkowska B. Additively manufactured subperiosteal implants for the rehabilitations of lateral incisors agenesis – A case series. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102263
Taheri M, Akbari S, Shamshiri AR, Shayesteh YS. Marginal bone loss around bone-level and tissue-level implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Anat. 2020;231:151525.
Couso-Queiruga E, Stuhr S, Tattan M, Chambrone L, Avila-Ortiz G. Post-extraction dimensional changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48:126–144.
Schou S, Pallesen L, Hjørting-Hansen E, et al. A 41-year history of a mandibular subperiosteal implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:171–178.
Post Recenti
Custom Fabricated Subperiosteal Implants for Sectional Rehabilitation of Severely Atrophic Maxillae: A Technical Note Luigi …
Bone Remodeling Around Implants with Different Macro-Design Placed in Post-Extraction Sockets: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography …
Full-arch rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: A multicenter retrospective …
Additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implant rehabilitation for severely atrophic maxillary molar area: a technical note …