← All modules
Treatment Algorithm · Module
Zygomatic & pterygoid implants: the severely atrophic maxilla
A referral-level decision aid for the graftless rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla. Severity of atrophy and sinus anatomy steer the choice between conventional implants with grafting, zygomatic anchorage, and pterygoid support.
Use: Severe atrophy reference
Level: Specialist / referral
Framework: ZAGA concept
01 — Indications & Concept
When to consider extra-maxillary anchorage
Zygomatic implants engage the dense body of the zygoma to bypass an unusable maxillary alveolus; pterygoid implants engage the pterygoid plates for posterior support. These are advanced techniques carrying significant anatomical risk and should be planned and placed by experienced surgeons.
Indications
Patient selection
- Severe maxillary atrophy (Cawood–Howell V–VI)
- Failed or declined bone grafting
- Post-maxillectomy / oncologic defect
- Desire for graftless, often immediate, fixed result
Concept
ZAGA approach
- Zygoma Anatomy-Guided Approach (Aparicio)
- CBCT-based ZAGA types 0–4 by wall concavity
- Trajectory follows anatomy (intra- vs extra-sinus)
- Reduces sinusitis vs rigid "one-technique" placement
Anatomy / Risks
Hazards to respect
- Sinusitis — most common late complication
- Orbital penetration / floor injury
- Infratemporal fossa, neurovascular structures
- Oroantral communication; difficult salvage
02 — Decision Pathway
Severity-driven approach selector
Available residual bone and sinus pneumatization determine the anchorage strategy. This selector flags when a case exceeds conventional implant therapy and warrants specialist referral.
Tap the maxillary atrophy / pneumatization picture from CBCT.
Step 1 — How severe is the maxillary deficiency?
MODERATE
Restorable with grafting
Some alveolar bone; sinus pneumatization graftable.
SEVERE
Unusable alveolus, zygoma intact
Graftless anchorage in the malar body needed.
POSTERIOR GAP
Posterior support deficit
Tuberosity inadequate; pterygoid anchorage to avoid cantilever.
▾
03 — Quick Reference
Indication, approach, and key risks
A summary of the principal graftless options for the atrophic maxilla. All extra-maxillary anchorage is specialist-level; obtain CBCT, plan trajectories, and counsel thoroughly.
| Indication | Approach | Key risks |
|---|
| Moderate atrophy, graftable sinus | Conventional implants + sinus/bone augmentation (staged or simultaneous) | Graft failure, membrane perforation, longer timeline |
| Severe atrophy, intact zygoma | Zygomatic implant(s) per ZAGA; ± conventional anterior implants | Sinusitis, orbital injury, oroantral communication |
| Posterior support deficit | Pterygoid implant into pterygomaxillary region | Neurovascular injury, poor access, angulation |
Reference
Sources & clinical disclaimer
For licensed clinicians — educational use only. This algorithm summarizes published classifications and consensus and is not a substitute for individual clinical judgment, examination, or the standard of care in your jurisdiction. Zygomatic and pterygoid implants are specialist, referral-level procedures with serious anatomical risk and should be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons.
- Aparicio C. A proposed classification for zygomatic implant patient based on the zygoma anatomy guided approach (ZAGA): a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4(3):269–275.
- Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70–85.
- Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(10):1949–1964.
Last reviewed: June 2026 · Next review due: June 2027 · Version 1.0