ArticleCureus2025
Pterygoid Anchorage of Subperiosteal Implants: An Overview and Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prosthetic-Guided Pterygoid Anchorage for HUG® Subperiosteal Implants: A Technical Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Treatment of Severe Atrophy with Juxta-Osseous Implants: A Systematic Review and Case Report.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severely atrophic maxillae (Cawood and Howell Class V-VI) often prevent conventional implant placement in the absence of extensive bone grafting, which carries risks, especially in elderly patients. Modern subperiosteal implants, digitally designed and manufactured in titanium using additive technologies, offer a graftless solution by anchoring the implant to basal bone structures such as the canine pillars and the zygomatic buttress. This case report explores the clinical feasibility of adding pterygoid anchorage to increase subperiosteal implant stability. A 71-year-old edentulous female with extreme maxillary atrophy received two custom subperiosteal implants designed with fixation points in the canine, zygomatic, and pterygoid regions. The digital workflow included cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging, digital smile design, and implant modeling with a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS)-gyroid structure to promote osseointegration. The implants were manufactured using Direct Metal Laser Sintering in Ti-6Al-4V ELI titanium and loaded immediately with a provisional titanium-reinforced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bridge. Surgical placement included the insertion of bicortical pterygoid screws that penetrated the pterygomaxillary suture, so increasing posterior support and countering the occlusal forces associated with anterior cantilevers. Postoperative results showed excellent implant stability and patient satisfaction. This report confirms that pterygoid anchorage is a viable addition to subperiosteal implant design. It offers improved mechanical stability and expands treatment options for patients with extreme bone loss, without requiring bone grafting. Further biomechanical and long-term studies are recommended to validate these promising findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.