EXTREME MAXILLARY ATROPHY: THE EVOLUTION OF REMOTE ANCHORAGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BIOLOGY AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY

P. Poliçi¹, S. Piccolo², F. De Falco^2*, S. Di Giovanni², R. Trabucco², J. Liguori², G.M. Granata² and M. Benegiamo³

¹ Catholic University Our Lady of Good Counsel, Tirana, Albania;
² Department of System Medicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy;
³ Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Italy.

*Correspondence to:
Fabrizio De Falco,
Department of System Medicine,
University of Rome “Tor Vergata”,
Rome, Italy.
e-mail: fabri_99@me.com

Received: 01 February, 2026 Accepted: 06 April, 2026

ISSN 2279-5855 print / 2974-6345 [online] Copyright 2026 © by Biolife-publisher This publication and/or article is for individual use only and may not be further reproduced without written permission from the copyright holder. Unauthorized reproduction may result in financial and other penalties. Disclosure: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Severe maxillary atrophy represents one of the most challenging conditions in contemporary implant dentistry. Traditional treatment paradigms have long been polarized between extensive reconstructive procedures and long-span “rescue” implant solutions. However, advances in digital planning, biomechanical understanding, and anatomy-driven surgical strategies are redefining decision-making in complex atrophic cases. Discussion: Reconstructive techniques, including sinus augmentation and guided bone regeneration, have demonstrated clinical effectiveness but are frequently associated with increased surgical burden, extended treatment times, and cumulative biological risk. Remote anchorage concepts, such as zygomatic, pterygoid, and trans-sinus implants, offer a biologically and biomechanically distinct alternative by exploiting high-density basal bone. Contemporary anatomy-guided protocols emphasize individualized implant trajectories, integration of digital workflows, and prosthetically driven planning. Functional considerations, including temporomandibular conditions, as well as long-term maintenance strategies and peri-implant complication management, play a critical role in therapeutic sustainability. Conclusions: The management of severe maxillary atrophy is evolving from a reconstructive dogma toward an anatomy-driven, patient-centered approach. Remote anchorage should not be regarded as a compromise, but as an adaptive strategy integrating biomechanics, digital precision, soft-tissue management, and ethical responsibility. Long-term success must be evaluated beyond implant survival, incorporating therapeutic efficiency, functional stability, and patient-related outcomes.

KEYWORDS: Severe maxillary atrophy, zygomatic implant, remote anchorage, anatomy-driven implantology, full-arch rehabilitation, digital workflow, peri-implantitis, basal bone anchorage, implant biomechanics

INTRODUCTION

The functional and esthetic rehabilitation of patients affected by severe maxillary atrophy continues to represent one of the most complex challenges in contemporary implant dentistry. In this clinical scenario, where volumetric deficiency is frequently associated with biological fragility and high rehabilitative expectations, scientific debate has long been polarized between two opposing approaches: extensive reconstructive techniques and long-span “rescue” implant solutions.

Contemporary clinical evidence suggests, however, that this dichotomy is progressively becoming obsolete. Attention is shifting toward an anatomy-driven remote anchorage philosophy that prioritizes the strategic use of pre-existing basal bone rather than the artificial reconstruction of lost alveolar volume. This approach enables a reduction in treatment time and surgical morbidity while ensuring more predictable biomechanical stability by exploiting high-density bone regions that are less susceptible to alveolar resorption.

The evolution of the field no longer concerns implant length or insertion site alone, but rather an increasingly integrated interaction among biology, biomechanics, and digital technology. Long-term success does not end with the surgical procedure itself; soft-tissue management, complication control, and functional stability are equally critical determinants. Recent literature emphasizes the importance of advanced surface decontamination protocols and regenerative approaches in the management of peri-implantitis, underscoring how the sustainability of rehabilitation depends on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatment perspective.

Taken together, the available evidence delineates a transition toward adaptive, patient-centered implant dentistry. The objective is no longer limited to implant survival, but to rehabilitative excellence achieved through respect for individual anatomy and therapeutic efficiency, marking a decisive shift from reconstructive dogma toward informed anatomical precision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

This study is based on a structured narrative review and critical analysis of the international scientific literature aimed at exploring contemporary treatment strategies for severe maxillary atrophy, with particular focus on the transition from extensive reconstructive procedures to anatomy-driven remote anchorage concepts.

The review specifically examined biological, biomechanical, prosthetic, digital, and ethical considerations influencing treatment planning in complex atrophic maxillae.

Sources and Search Criteria

Databases: The literature search was conducted using major electronic biomedical databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus.

Keywords and Search Terms: Search strategies were developed using combinations of keywords and MeSH terms related to the topic. The primary search terms included: “Severe maxillary atrophy”, “Zygomatic implants”, “Remote anchorage”, “Trans-sinus implants”, “Pterygoid implants”, “Full-arch rehabilitation”, “Anatomy-driven implant placement”, “Digital workflow in implant dentistry”, “Peri-implantitis management”, “Temporomandibular disorders and implant rehabilitation” and “Soft tissue management in implant surgery”.

Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to refine the search strategy.

Reference Period: Priority was given to recent publications to reflect contemporary clinical paradigms. However, historically significant publications addressing prosthetically driven planning, zygomatic implant concepts, and foundational biomechanical principles were also included when considered essential for contextual understanding.

Types of Studies Included

Eligible publications included systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on zygomatic and trans-sinus implant rehabilitation, as well as prospective and retrospective clinical studies reporting survival rates, biological and mechanical complications, and long-term outcomes. Clinical case series addressing the management of complex atrophic maxillae were also considered. In addition, in vitro and in vivo investigations examining implant surface characteristics, biological responses, and osseointegration dynamics were included when relevant to the biomechanical rationale of remote anchorage. Particular attention was given to studies evaluating peri-implantitis treatment strategies and surface decontamination protocols, as well as research exploring temporomandibular disorders and functional risk assessment in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations. Technical reports and methodological studies describing digital workflow integration and virtual patient protocols were incorporated to contextualize contemporary planning strategies.

Opinion papers without scientific support and studies lacking methodological clarity were excluded.

Data Extraction

For each selected publication, relevant information was systematically extracted and organized according to key thematic domains. These included the surgical approach adopted, distinguishing between reconstructive and remote anchorage strategies, implant survival and complication rates, biomechanical principles governing load distribution, and functional considerations, particularly with respect to temporomandibular implications. Additional data were collected regarding digital planning accuracy, prosthetic integration, soft-tissue management, and wound stability. Specific emphasis was placed on the management of peri-implant biological complications and on patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life measures and overall therapeutic burden.

Synthesis and Interpretation

Extracted data were synthesized and thematically organized to provide a comprehensive overview of current strategies in the management of severe maxillary atrophy.

The interpretation of findings was guided by a clinically translational perspective, emphasizing the integration of anatomical assessment, biomechanical rationale, digital precision, and ethical responsibility in treatment selection.

Rather than performing a quantitative meta-analysis, the objective was to construct a structured decision-making framework reflecting contemporary evidence and practical clinical implications.

DISCUSSION

Severe maxillary atrophy remains one of the most complex and demanding clinical scenarios in implant dentistry, where biological limitations, surgical risks, and patient vulnerability converge. Despite advances in biomaterials and regenerative techniques, the management of extreme maxillary resorption continues to be framed as a dichotomy between extensive reconstructive procedures and long-span “rescue” implant solutions. However, this polarized perspective appears increasingly misaligned with contemporary clinical evidence and modern decision-making paradigms.

For decades, reconstructive approaches, such as maxillary sinus elevation, vertical bone regeneration, onlay grafting, and Le Fort I osteotomies, have dominated treatment planning for the atrophic maxilla. Although effective in carefully selected patients, these techniques inherently prioritize the creation of new bone over the strategic utilization of residual anatomical structures. In cases of severe atrophy, this frequently results in prolonged treatment times, multiple surgical interventions, and an increased cumulative risk of biological and mechanical complications. Even when successful, advanced guided bone regeneration protocols highlight the significant surgical and biological burden associated with such reconstructive strategies (1).

Within this framework, remote anchorage concepts, including zygomatic, pterygoid, and trans-sinus implants, should no longer be regarded as last-resort interventions. Rather, they represent a distinct therapeutic philosophy based on anchorage in high-density, low-remodeling basal bone, thereby enhancing primary stability and long-term biomechanical reliability (2). Clinical evidence indicates that, when properly indicated and executed, these approaches can achieve survival rates comparable to, or in some reports, exceeding those of graft-dependent reconstructions (3), with significant reduction in overall patient morbidity.

The evolution of remote anchorage is not defined solely by implant length or insertion site, but by an anatomy-driven approach that integrates implant trajectory, prosthetic emergence profile, soft-tissue interaction, and functional implications, including temporomandibular conditions (4). Individual maxillary anatomy, such as sinus morphology, lateral wall concavity, residual bone volume, and orientation of the zygomatic buttress, must guide surgical planning. Contemporary concepts of implant site preparation emphasizing controlled, anatomy-guided trajectories further support the transition toward personalized surgical decision-making (5).

From a prosthetic perspective, planning must remain subordinate to rehabilitative objectives. Early prosthetically driven full-arch protocols had already emphasized the importance of integrating surgical and prosthetic planning within a unified workflow (6). More recently, digital integration of facial, skeletal, and prosthetic data has significantly enhanced alignment predictability and planning coherence in complex implant-prosthetic rehabilitations (7,8).

Surgical techniques have progressively adapted to anatomical variability, incorporating intra-sinus, extra-sinus, and anatomy-guided approaches such as the ZAGA protocol (2). In complex reconstructive contexts, including oncologic resections, zygomatic implants have demonstrated additional clinical applications (9). Long-term analyses further confirm the reliability of zygomatic anchorage in severe maxillary atrophy (10,11).

The predominantly cortical structure of the zygomatic bone provides excellent primary stability, a fundamental prerequisite for successful osseointegration. The importance of achieving adequate primary stability has been consistently emphasized across different implant protocols, including immediate post-extractive approaches, where mechanical conditions directly influence long-term biological outcomes (12). Implant macro- and nano-structural characteristics may further modulate biomechanical behavior and tissue response at the bone–implant interface, highlighting the relevance of implant morphology in complex rehabilitations (13).

However, long-term maintenance also depends on appropriate soft-tissue management and effective control of biological complications. Regenerative approaches and surface decontamination protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of peri-implantitis (14,15). Moreover, implant surface characteristics and biological interactions can influence osseointegration quality and long-term stability (16). Surgical principles aimed at minimizing tissue trauma, ensuring tension-free closure, and preserving vascular supply significantly affect healing outcomes, and analyses of suture materials and techniques underline the critical role of soft-tissue management in wound stability and mucosal integration, particularly in high-risk surgical scenarios (17).

Beyond technical considerations, the ethical dimension of treatment selection plays a central role. Patients with severe maxillary atrophy are frequently elderly or medically compromised. Treatment success should not be evaluated solely in terms of implant survival, but also in relation to biological burden, quality of life, and overall therapeutic efficiency (18,19). Functional aspects involving the temporomandibular joint must also be considered in full-arch rehabilitations, where altered load distribution may influence joint biomechanics and adaptive responses over time (20).

Future research should therefore move beyond survival metrics alone and promote anatomy-stratified decision-making models integrating clinical, biomechanical, functional, and patient-centered parameters, in order to optimize long-term outcomes in severe maxillary atrophy.

CONCLUSIONS

Success in the treatment of extreme maxillary atrophy can no longer be evaluated solely in terms of implant survival; it must also encompass overall therapeutic efficiency and the reduction of biological and psychological burden for the patient. The evolution of implant designs, the accuracy of digital workflows, and the implementation of advanced surface decontamination protocols now provide effective tools not only for the surgical phase but also for long-term maintenance and the management of potential peri-implant complications. Within this framework, clinical decision-making is progressively shifting from extensive bone regeneration toward a strategy based on anatomical precision and the strategic exploitation of the structural buttresses of the facial skeleton. Severe maxillary atrophy should no longer be managed according to a rigid procedural hierarchy or reconstructive dogma, but through a rational and individualized decision-making process. Anatomy-driven remote anchorage does not represent a therapeutic compromise, but rather an evolution that integrates biomechanics, biology, prosthetic planning, soft-tissue management, and ethical responsibility into a coherent, patient-centered clinical strategy. Recognizing this paradigm shift is essential for the responsible advancement of implant dentistry in its most complex clinical scenarios. In this perspective, anatomical limitations become strategic assets: the zygomatic bone and basal buttresses, relatively stable over time, form the foundation of a rehabilitation that is not only functional, but also respectful of patient vulnerability and quality of life.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Belleggia F, Signorini L, Martelli M, Gargari M. Horizontal Guided Bone Regeneration Using Titanium-Reinforced Dense PTFE Membrane and Synthetic Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite: A Case Study Reporting Clinical and Histological Outcomes with 5-Year Follow-Up. International Journal of Translational Medicine. 2025; 5(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijtm5020019.
2. Gianfreda F, Antonacci D, Mastrangelo F, et al. Indications, techniques and complications associated with full-arch rehabilitation using trans-sinus implants: A systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2025;18(2):105-116.
3. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, et al. Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):41-58. doi:10.1111/prd.12038.
4. Franco R, Basili M, Venditti A, et al. Statistical analysis of the frequency distribution of signs and symptoms of patients with temporomandibular disorders. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2016;9(4):190-201. doi:10.11138/orl/2016.9.4.190.
5. Canullo L, Iacono R, Pires Godoy E, et al. Hybrid Funnel Technique: A Novel Approach for Implant Site Preparation: A Pilot Study. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(9):157. doi:10.3390/dj10090157.
6. Spinelli D, Ottria L, DE Vico G, Bollero R, Barlattani A, Bollero P. Full rehabilitation with nobel clinician(®) and procera implant bridge(®): case report. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013;6(2):25-36.
7. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Antonacci D, Pompeo MG, Bollero P, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 3: In vitro accuracy of a digital facebow. J Dent. 2023;137:104622. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104622.
8. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Bollero P, Pompeo MG, Miele G, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 1: Free vs Guided face scan protocol. J Dent. 2022;116:103881. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103881.
9. Butterworth CJ, Lowe D, Rogers SN. The Zygomatic Implant Perforated (ZIP) flap reconstructive technique for the management of low-level maxillary malignancy – clinical & patient related outcomes on 35 consecutively treated patients. Head Neck. 2022;44(2):345-358. doi:10.1002/hed.26933.
10. Gaonkar SH, Aras MA, Chitre V, Mascarenhas K, Amin B, Rajagopal P. Survival rates of axial and tilted implants in the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using the All-on-four™ concept: A systematic review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021;21(1):3-10. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_100_20.
11. Mancini L, Eberle ME, Jung R, Rohner D. Zygomatic Implants in Severe Maxillary Atrophy: 5.5-Year Retrospective Analysis of 262 Cases. J Oral Implantol. 2025;51(6):506-512. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-D-25-00072.
12. Mastrangelo F, Gastaldi G, Vinci R, et al. Immediate Postextractive Implants With and Without Bone Graft: 3-year Follow-up Results From a Multicenter Controlled Randomized Trial. Implant Dent. 2018;27(6):638-645. doi:10.1097/ID.0000000000000816.
13. Tetè S, Mastrangelo F, Traini T, et al. A macro- and nanostructure evaluation of a novel dental implant. Implant Dent. 2008;17(3):309-20. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318182d494.
14. Gianfreda F, Punzo A, Pistilli V, et al. Electrolytic Cleaning and Regenerative Therapy of Peri-implantitis in the Esthetic Area: A Case Report. Eur J Dent. 2022;16(4):950-956. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1750773
15. Gianfreda F, Bollero P, Muzzi M, Di Giulio A, Nicolai E, Canullo L. The Effects of Ultrasonic Scaling and Air-Abrasive Powders on the Decontamination of 9 Implant-Abutment Surfaces: Scanning Electron Analysis and In Vitro Study. Dentistry Journal. 2022; 10(3):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10030036.
16. Gianfreda F, Miranda M, Ambrogio G, et al. Bone healing patterns in osteoporotic patients: study on titanium surfaces treated with Vitamin D nanoparticles. Annali Di Stomatologia. 2025;16(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.59987/ads/2025.1.49-53.
17. Minozzi F, Bollero P, Unfer V, Dolci A, Galli M. The sutures in dentistry. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2009;13(3):217-26.
18. D’Amico C, Fiorillo L, Galletti C, Gargari M, Rosa A, Martelli M. Oral health-related quality of life and prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia: a systematic review. Psychol Health Med. 2025:1-14. doi:10.1080/13548506.2025.2565524.
19. Lettieri M, Rosa A, Spataro F, et al. Chewing Matters: Masticatory Function, Oral Microbiota, and Gut Health in the Nutritional Management of Aging. Nutrients. 2025; 17(15):2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17152507.
20. Barlattani A Jr, Martelli M, Gargari M, Ottria L. Articular disc of temporomandibular joint: an anatomical and histological study. Functional considerations. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(6 Suppl. 2):199-208.