Preventive Use of the Pedicled Buccal Fat Pad Flap in Minimally Invasive Zygomatic Implant Surgery: A Modification of the Parisi–Fevola Protocol
by Guillermo Parisi1, Sebastián Puia2, Federico Stolbizer2, Leandro Fernandez3, Leandro Févola4*
1Department of Dentistry, Head of service, General Acute Hospital Donación, Francisco Santojanni, Assistant professor in Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
2Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, Head of service, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
3Assistant professor in Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
4Department of Dentistry Staff surgeon, General Acute Hospital Donación, Francisco Santojanni Assistant professor in Department ofMaxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
*Corresponding Author: Leandro Luis Fevola, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Received Date: 03 August 2026
Accepted Date: 12 August 2026
Published Date: 14 August 2026
Citation: Parisi G, Puia S, Stolbizer F, Fernandez L, Févola L (2026) Preventive Use of the Pedicled Buccal Fat Pad Flap in Minimally Invasive Zygomatic Implant Surgery: A Modification of the Parisi–Fevola Protocol. J Surg 11: 11678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29011/2575-9760.01178
Abstract
Purpose:To describe a modification of the Parisi–Fevola Protocol for minimally invasive zygomatic implant surgery through the incorporation of the pedicled buccal fat pad flap as a biological strategy to optimize peri-implant soft tissue management.
Materials and Methods:The proposed modification consists of harvesting and repositioning the pedicled buccal fat pad during the same surgical procedure performed for zygomatic implant placement. The flap is indicated in patients presenting with severe maxillary atrophy, reduced soft tissue thickness, buccally positioned implant emergence profiles, immediate loading protocols, or increased risk of postoperative soft tissue dehiscence.
Results:The incorporation of the buccal fat pad flap increases peri-implant soft tissue volume, reduces closure tension, enhances vascularity, protects implant emergence sites, and may reduce postoperative soft tissue complications.
Conclusion:The addition of the pedicled buccal fat pad flap represents a biologically based refinement of the Parisi–Fevola Protocol, improving peri-implant soft tissue stability while preserving the minimally invasive philosophy of the surgical technique.
Keywords: Bichat Fat Pad; Buccal Fat Pad; Immediate Loading; Maxillary Atrophy; Oral Surgery; Soft Tissue Management; Zygomatic Implants.
Introduction
Treatment of patients with severe maxillary atrophy remains one of the greatest challenges in implant dentistry. Over the last decades, zygomatic implants have become a predictable alternative for rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla while avoiding extensive grafting procedures [1]. The Parisi–Fevola Protocol was developed to reduce surgical morbidity through meticulous three-dimensional planning, anatomically guided implant positioning, and minimally invasive intraoral access. The protocol emphasizes preservation of vascular supply, reduction of soft tissue trauma, and immediate prosthetic rehabilitation whenever clinically indicated. Although primary implant stability and bicortical anchorage are fundamental for treatment success, long-term outcomes also depend on the quality of the peri-implant soft tissues. Soft tissue deficiencies remain one of the major causes of implant exposure, mucosal dehiscence, chronic inflammation, and long-term maintenance difficulties. For this reason, the present article proposes incorporating the pedicled buccal fat pad flap into the Parisi–Fevola Protocol as a preventive biological adjunct for selected clinical situations [2-5].
Biological Rationale
The buccal fat pad is a specialized encapsulated adipose structure located within the masticatory space. Because of its abundant vascularization and anatomical proximity to the posterior maxilla, it has become an established reconstructive option for oral defects. Its biological characteristics make it particularly attractive for zygomatic implant surgery [6-8].
- The pedicled flap provides:
- Excellent vascular supply.
- Autogenous tissue with minimal donor-site morbidity.
- Increased peri-implant mucosal thickness.
- Reduced tension during flap closure.
- Rapid spontaneous epithelialization.
- Mechanical protection of implant emergence profiles.
- Improved soft tissue quality surrounding the prosthetic components.
These biological properties may contribute to improved periimplant tissue stability during the critical healing phase.
Surgical Application within the Parisi–Fevola Protocol
The buccal fat pad can be harvested through the same posterior intraoral access already used for placement of zygomatic implants. No additional external incision is required. After implant placement and before definitive wound closure, the buccal fat pad is gently mobilized while preserving its vascular pedicle. The flap is advanced to cover the implant emergence areas and stabilized using resorbable sutures. This additional maneuver requires only a few extra minutes and does not substantially increase surgical morbidity [9-11] (Figures 1-7).

Figure 1: Image showing an unfavorable soft tissue biotype.

Figure 2: Flapless Parisi–Fevola Protocol Approach Through A Minimal Vestibular Ridge Incision.

Figure 3: Pedicled buccal fat pad flap harvested through the same surgical approach used in the Parisi–Fevola Protocol.

Figure 4: Blunt dissection and mobilization of the buccal fat pad extension.

Figure 5: Pedicle Sutured To The Wound Margins.
Figures 6,7: Clinical appearance after 12 months of follow-up.
Clinical Indications
The authors recommend considering the technique in patients presenting with:
- Severe or extreme maxillary atrophy.
- Thin peri-implant soft tissues.
- Scarred mucosa after previous surgeries.
- Buccally positioned implant emergence.
- Immediate loading protocols.
- Patients at increased risk for wound dehiscence.
- Revision surgery.
- Previous implant exposure.
Clinical Advantages
From a biological perspective, incorporation of the pedicled buccal fat pad flap may provide several advantages:
- Improved quality of soft tissue closure [12-16].
- Increased peri-implant soft tissue thickness.
- Reduced incidence of implant exposure.
- Enhanced vascularization.
- Faster soft tissue maturation.
- Lower incidence of postoperative dehiscence.
- Improved long-term peri-implant maintenance.
- Reduced need for secondary soft tissue grafting.
Discussion
Soft tissue management has become increasingly recognized as an essential determinant of long-term implant success. While most publications regarding zygomatic implants focus primarily on implant positioning, biomechanical stability, and prosthetic rehabilitation, relatively little attention has been devoted to biological optimization of peri-implant soft tissues. The incorporation of the pedicled buccal fat pad flap addresses this limitation by introducing a well-vascularized autogenous tissue into an area frequently characterized by reduced mucosal thickness and compromised vascularity.Unlike connective tissue grafts, the buccal fat pad provides abundant tissue volume with minimal donor-site morbidity and can be harvested through the same surgical access used during zygomatic implant placement [17-20]. Its preventive use aligns with the minimally invasive philosophy of the Parisi–Fevola Protocol by reducing the likelihood of postoperative complications without increasing surgical complexity. Future prospective clinical studies should evaluate the long-term effects of this modification on implant survival, soft tissue stability, prosthetic maintenance, and patientreported outcomes [21-24].
Conclusion
The incorporation of the pedicled buccal fat pad flap into the Parisi–Fevola Protocol represents a biologically driven refinement of minimally invasive zygomatic implant surgery. By enhancing peri-implant soft tissue quality and improving biological protection of implant emergence sites, this modification has the potential to reduce postoperative complications and optimize long-term clinical outcomes. Further clinical investigations are warranted to validate these preliminary concepts.
References
- Parisi G, Puia S, Stolbizer F, Fernandez L, Févola L (2026) ParisiFévola Technique: Minimally Invasive Protocol forZygomatic Implant Placement Under Local Anesthesia. J Surg 11: 11594
- Wang J, Chen B, Zhao Y, Pan S, Xu X (2024) The optional apex sitesfor quad zygomatic implant placement in edentulous patients with severe alveolar bone resorption: a CBCT anatomical analysis. BMC Oral Health 24: 1393.
- Gracher AH, de Moura MB, da Silva Peres P, Thomé G, Padovan LE (2021) Full arch rehabilitation in patients with atrophic upper jawswith zygomatic implants: A systematic review. Int J Implant Dent 7: 17.
- Al-Nawas B, Aghaloo T, Aparicio C, Bedrossian E, Brecht L (2023) ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: Indications, evaluation ofsurgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes. Int J ImplantDent 9: 28.
- Branemark P (1998) Surgery and fixture installation: zygomaticusfixture clinical procedures., First edition. edn. Goteborg, Sweden: Nobel Biocare AB, 1998.
- Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B (2004) Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of themaxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr SurgHand Surg 38: 70-85.
- Stella JP, Warner MR (2000) Sinus slot technique for simplification andimproved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: a technical note.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15: 889-893.
- Migliorança RM, Coppedê A, Dias Rezende RC, de Mayo T (2011) Restoration of the edentulous maxilla using extrasinus zygomaticimplants combined with anterior conventional implants: a retrospectivestudy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26: 665-672.
- Maló P, Nobre Mde A, Lopes I (2008) A new approach to rehabilitatethe severely atrophic maxilla using extramaxillary anchored implants in immediate function: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 100: 354-366.
- Aparicio C (2011) A proposed classification for zygomatic implantpatient based on the zygoma anatomy guided approach (ZAGA): acrosssectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol 4: 269-275.
- Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R (2010) Extrasinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities inthe edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12: 55-61.
- Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Alández J (2014) Zygomatic implants: Indications, techniques and outcomes, and thezygomatic success code. Periodontol 2000 66: 41-58.
- Kämmerer PW, Fan S, Aparicio C, Bedrossian E, Davó R (2023) Evaluation of surgical techniques in survival rate and complications of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: A systematic review. Int J Implant Dent 9: 11.
- Polido WD, Machado -Fernandez A, Lin WS, Aghaloo T (2023) indications for zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Int J implant Dent 9: 17.
- Bedrossian E, Brunski J, Al-Nawas B, Kämmerer PW (2023) Zygomaimplant under function: Biomechanical principles clarified. Int J Implant Dent 9: 15.
- Davó R, Pons O (2015) 5-year outcome of cross-arch prostheses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic implants: Aprospective case series. Eur J Oral Implantol 8: 169-174.
- Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2016) Survival andcomplications of zygomatic implants: An updated systematic review. JOral Maxillofac Surg 74: 1949-1964.
- Fernández H, Gómez-Delgado A, Trujillo-Saldarriaga S, VarónCardona D, Castro-Núñez J (2014) Zygomatic implants for the management of the severely atrophied maxilla: A retrospective analysis of 244 implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72: 887-891.
- Gutiérrez Muñoz D, Obrador Aldover C, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, González Menéndez H, Lorrio Castro J (2021) Survival Rateand Prosthetic and Sinus Complications of Zygomatic Dental Implantsfor the Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla: A SystematicReview and Meta- Analysis. Biology (Basel) 10: 601.
- Brennand Roper M, Vissink A, Dudding T, Pollard A, Gareb B (2023) Long-term treatment outcomes with zygomatic implants: asystematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 9: 21.
- Di Cosola M, Ballini A, Zhurakivska K, Ceccarello A, Nocini R, et al.(2021) Retrospective analysis of clinical and radiologic data regardingzygomatic implant rehabilitation with a long-term follow-up. Int JEnviron Res Public Health 18: 12963.
- Blanco-Ruiz S, Molinero-Mourelle PM, Fernández-TresguerresFG, Blanco-Samper S, López-Quiles J (2023) Effect Blanco-Ruizof the buccal fat pad in the prevention of zygomatic implant surgery postoperative complications: A pilot study. Med Oral Patol Oral CirBucal 28: e371-e377.
- de Moraes EJ (2012) The buccal fat pad flap: An option to preventand treat complications regarding complex zygomatic implant surgery. Preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27: 905-910.
- Guennal P, Guiol J (2018) Use of buccal fat pads to prevent vestibulargingival recession of zygomatic implants. J Stomatol Oral MaxillofacSurg 119: 161-163.
© by the Authors & Gavin Publishers. This is an Open Access Journal Article Published Under Attribution-Share Alike CC BY-SA: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Read More About Open Access Policy.