If “more titanium and more screws” sounds like a plan, this conversation may change your mind. We take you behind the curtain of subperiosteal implant design—what the classic meso bar frameworks did brilliantly, why many custom PSI trends miss critical load paths, and how occlusion often determines whether a case survives decades or fails in months. Drawing on tough lessons from early HA-coated, multi-post maxillary cases and the happiest patients who lived well with two-thirds of a frame, we unpack where repairability, segmenting, and tissue-friendly geometry still outperform shiny shortcuts.

We walk through the real differences between mandible and maxilla: cortical density, palatal and nasal spine engagement, lateral sinus walls, and the unforgiving mucosa over pneumatized spaces. You’ll hear how palatal coverage and canine eminences lifted success rates historically, and why skipping them today invites the same old complications with a digital gloss. We challenge the “ladder” mindset—singles to All-on-4 to pterygoids to zygos to PSI—and propose a more honest sequence: remote anchorage first, maxillary subs as rescue, and mandibular subs as a predictable workhorse when designed and maintained correctly.

This is a prosthetic-first blueprint. Nail the occlusal scheme, align DICOM and STL perfectly, and design frames that are thin, recessed, and biologically sensible. Use materials and guidance that absorb shock, control lateral excursions, and make revisions feasible. We share a sobering maxillary failure with sinus fistulas to underline the stakes and offer a practical checklist for vetting labs and designers who can speak both biomechanics and biology, not just software. If you want growth without trophy hunting, and long-term function your hygiene team can support, this one will sharpen your judgment.

Enjoyed the conversation? Follow, share with a colleague who’s PSI-curious, and leave a quick review telling us where you draw the line on maxillary subs.