Technology

Zygomatic Implants: When the Upper Jaw Is Severely Resorbed

Long implants anchored in the cheekbone (zygoma) allow full-arch upper rehabilitation without bone grafting in patients with severe maxillary atrophy. The technique is powerful and demanding.

Reading time
7–9 min
Medically reviewed
Reviewed by a licensed dentist
Last updated
2026-06-01

Medically reviewed by

Medical Review Board (External Clinical Advisors)

Medical review

Editorial review

Evidence Review Lead

Editorial review

Last reviewed:
2026-06-01
Last updated:
2026-06-01
Reading time:
7–9 min
Version:
1.0

Overview

When the upper jaw has lost too much bone for conventional implants — and the patient prefers not to undergo prolonged sinus and ridge grafting — zygomatic implants offer a same-week functional full-arch reconstruction. The implants are 30–55 mm long and engage the dense cortical bone of the zygomatic (cheek) bone rather than the resorbed alveolar ridge.

When zygomatic implants are considered

  • Severely atrophic maxilla where conventional implants would require major grafting.
  • Failed prior augmentations.
  • Post-tumour resection or maxillary defects.
  • Patients who decline staged grafting and want a same-week solution.

Common configurations

  • Two zygomatic + two anterior conventional implants — the classic hybrid for moderate atrophy.
  • Quad zygomatic (four zygomatic implants) — for the most severely atrophic maxilla with no usable anterior bone.
  • Immediate loading is standard: a screw-retained provisional bridge is delivered within 24–48 hours.

Risks specific to zygomatic placement

  • Sinusitis (the implant traverses the maxillary sinus in most techniques).
  • Soft-tissue dehiscence at the palatal emergence in the anatomy-conscious extra-maxillary approach.
  • Orbital or infratemporal misplacement in inexperienced hands (rare but serious).
  • Periprosthetic infection at the implant–prosthesis junction.

Outcomes

Long-term cumulative survival of zygomatic implants in high-volume centres is commonly reported above 95% at 5–10 years. Patient satisfaction is high because grafting and months of healing are avoided[2]. The technique is technique-sensitive and should be performed by surgeons with specific training and adequate case volume.

Frequently asked questions

Scientific references

  1. 1. Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M. (2019). The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 21(4):565-577. View source
  2. 2. International Team for Implantology. (various). ITI Consensus Conference Proceedings. ITI. View source