Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across...

Background/Objectives: Contemporary patient-specific subperiosteal implants have re-emerged as graftless solutions for oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation, driven by advances in digital planning, CAD/CAM workflows, additive manufacturing, and biomaterial engineering. Their indications have progressively expanded from severely atrophic edentulous jaws to segmental defects, single-tooth replacement, congenital craniofacial anomalies, salvage situations, and oncologic reconstruction. This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence on modern patient-specific subperiosteal implants, focusing on indications, workflow, design principles, materials, outcomes, complications, and maintenance. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR principles to identify clinical studies, case series, case reports, systematic and scoping reviews, technical notes, finite element analyses, in vitro studies, and relevant translational investigations dealing with contemporary custom-made or CAD/CAM subperiosteal implants. The evidence was narratively synthesized according to clinical indication and thematic domains, including full-arch rehabilitation, sectional and single-tooth applications, congenital and post-oncologic defects, rescue indications, biomechanics, material selection, surface response, prosthetic protocols, and complication management. No quantitative meta-analysis was performed because of the scoping design and the substantial heterogeneity of study types, indications, implant systems, outcome definitions, and follow-up durations. Results: The final evidence map included 116 records, of which 56 were unique human clinical records with extractable denominators and 60 were biomechanical, in vitro, surface-biology, review, consensus, historical, or conceptual records. Of the 56 unique clinical records, 49 were mapped within the six indication-level clinical sections, while seven were retained as cross-cutting clinical evidence addressing patient-reported outcomes, design-related complications, bone apposition, anchorage strategy, comparative graftless rehabilitation, or reconstructive/prosthetic principles. The six indication-level sections included 52 clinical-record assignments: 15 for full-arch rehabilitation, 13 for segmental or sectional rehabilitation, one for single-tooth rehabilitation, four for congenital or craniofacial indications, 13 for post-oncologic or post-ablative reconstruction, and six for rescue or salvage indications. Because three records addressed more than one indication, these counts represent indication-level assignments rather than mutually exclusive clinical records. Reported survival in most short- to mid-term clinical series was generally high, commonly ranging from 90% to 100%, although lower values of 70-80% were reported in selected longer-term cohorts and survival clearly overestimated clinical success in some studies. Expanding applications include posterior mandibular and maxillary defects, lateral incisor agenesis, cleft-related or syndromic deformities, maxillectomy reconstruction, obturator support, and hybrid rehabilitation with endosseous implants; however, evidence for the indications at the extremes of this spectrum-single-tooth replacement and primary oncologic reconstruction-remains limited to small, largely single-group case series and reports. Soft-tissue events, including dehiscence, mucositis, recession, and framework exposure, were the dominant complications and showed wide variability, with reported recession/exposure rates ranging from approximately 10% in some sectional and full-arch series to as high as 65% in bilateral maxillary cohorts; their clinical significance varied from asymptomatic stable findings to progressive inflammatory complications requiring revision. Conclusions: Patient-specific subperiosteal implants represent a promising and increasingly versatile reconstructive option; however, the present findings should be interpreted as evidence mapping rather than as definitive comparative evidence. Their clinical use should remain highly selective, prosthetically driven, and supported by meticulous planning, rigid fixation, soft-tissue management, and structured maintenance. Standardized success criteria, longer follow-up, and comparative prospective studies are required.