Pterygoid implants
Also known as: Pterygomaxillary implant, Pterygoid fixture
Implants placed from the maxillary tuberosity backwards into the pterygoid region, engaging dense posterior cortical bone so that the back of the upper jaw can be restored without sinus grafting.
Key facts
| Anchorage | Engages the cortical bone formed by the posterior wall of the maxillary tuberosity, the horizontal process of the palatine bone and the pterygoid process of the sphenoid boneVerified spec[1] |
|---|---|
| Typical use | Used to obtain posterior support in an atrophic upper jaw, as an alternative to sinus floor elevation or to a distal cantilever on a full-arch prosthesis. |
| Clinical evidence | A systematic review of 38 studies covering 3,446 implants in 2,245 patients, with a mean follow-up of 61.0 ± 36.3 months, reported a 10-year cumulative survival of 92.5% for pterygoid implants and 96.9% at 12 years for maxillary tuberosity implantsClinical evidence |
| Limitations | In the same review, failures were concentrated in the first year of follow-up; the surgical approach is technically demanding and access is restricted, so results should not be assumed to generalise across operatorsClinical evidence |
| How it differs | Distinct from a tuberosity implant, which remains within the maxillary tuberosity rather than continuing into the pterygoid process; the two are reported separately and their survival figures differVerified spec[1] |
| Origin | Requires manual verification(The technique is generally credited to Tulasne in the early 1990s; we have not yet attached a primary source for that attribution) |
Overview
A pterygoid implant is angled backwards from behind the last molar into the dense bone at the junction of the palatine and sphenoid bones, giving a full-arch prosthesis posterior support in an upper jaw that has lost height under the sinus. Its purpose is to avoid a sinus graft, or to avoid finishing the bridge on a long unsupported cantilever. Pooled survival at ten years in the largest systematic review to date is 92.5% — respectable, but noticeably lower than figures usually quoted for conventional implants, and the failures cluster in the first year, which points to the difficulty of achieving initial stability at this angle. It should not be confused with a tuberosity implant, which stops short of the pterygoid process and is reported separately in the literature.
Sources
Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.
Clinical evidence
- [1]Clinical Outcomes of Pterygoid and Maxillary Tuberosity Implants: A Systematic Review — Journal of Clinical Medicine (PMC), 2024. Accessed 2026-07-21.