Systematic review evaluates efficacy of juxta-osseous implants in severe atrophy, suggesting a viable alternative to bone grafting.
Background: Severe jaw atrophy limits traditional endosseous implantation, often necessitating complex regenerative procedures. Advances in digital planning and 3D printing have reintroduced custom-made subperiosteal (juxta-osseous) implants as a viable alternative. This study evaluates the clinical reliability and advantages of next-generation juxta-osseous implants. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines across the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The search focused on English-language studies reporting on custom-made titanium juxta-osseous implants in patients with severe maxillary or mandibular atrophy. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. Additionally, a representative clinical case of a 60-year-old female treated via a fully digital workflow is presented to illustrate the protocol. Results: Twenty-six articles were included, accounting for 147 clinical cases. Most patients exhibited Cawood and Howell Class V–VI atrophy. All identified treatments utilized integrated digital workflows, including CBCT imaging, CAD/CAM design, and additive manufacturing (SLM/DMLS) of medical-grade titanium alloy. Reported success rates exceeded 90%, with high primary stability enabling immediate or early loading protocols and high patient satisfaction. Complications were primarily limited to manageable soft-tissue dehiscence. Conclusions: Modern juxta-osseous implants represent a promising, minimally invasive alternative to bone grafting for severe atrophy, enabling rapid functional restoration in the short-to-medium-term. However, because current evidence is limited to clinical studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Long-term prospective trials are essential to establish definitive clinical predictability and standardized protocols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gasbarri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: