Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Combining the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide with the long-acting amylin analogue cagrilintide has weight-loss benefits; the impact on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is unknown. This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of co-administered semaglutide with cagrilintide (CagriSema) in participants with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This 32-week, multicentre, double-blind, phase 2 trial was conducted across 17 sites in the USA. Adults with type 2 diabetes and a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher on metformin with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous CagriSema, semaglutide, or cagrilintide (all escalated to 2·4 mg). Randomisation was done centrally using an interactive web response system and was stratified according to use of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (yes vs no). The trial participants, investigators, and trial sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c; secondary endpoints were bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters, and safety. Efficacy analyses were performed in all participants who had undergone randomisation, and safety analyses in all participants who had undergone randomisation and received at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04982575) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 2 and Oct 18, 2021, 92 participants were randomly assigned to CagriSema (n=31), semaglutide (n=31), or cagrilintide (n=30). 59 (64%) participants were male; the mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 9). The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -2·2 percentage points [SE 0·15]; semaglutide: -1·8 percentage points [0·16]; cagrilintide: -0·9 percentage points [0·15]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (estimated treatment difference -1·3 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to -0·8]; p<0·0001), but not versus semaglutide (-0·4 percentage points [-0·8 to 0·0]; p=0·075). The mean change in bodyweight from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -15·6% [SE 1·26]; semaglutide: -5·1% [1·26]; cagrilintide: -8·1% [1·23]) was greater with CagriSema versus both semaglutide (p<0·0001) and cagrilintide (p<0·0001). The mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -3·3 mmol/L [SE 0·3]; semaglutide: -2·5 mmol/L [0·4]; cagrilintide: -1·7 mmol/L [0·3]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (p=0·0010) but not versus semaglutide (p=0·10). Time in range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) was 45·9%, 32·6%, and 56·9% at baseline and 88·9%, 76·2%, and 71·7% at week 32 with CagriSema, semaglutide, and cagrilintide, respectively. Adverse events were reported by 21 (68%) participants in the CagriSema group, 22 (71%) in the semaglutide group, and 24 (80%) in the cagrilintide group. Mild or moderate gastrointestinal adverse events were most common; no level 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia was reported. No fatal adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

In people with type 2 diabetes, treatment with CagriSema resulted in clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control (including CGM parameters). The mean change in HbA1c with CagriSema was greater versus cagrilintide, but not versus semaglutide. Treatment with CagriSema resulted in significantly greater weight loss versus semaglutide and cagrilintide and was well tolerated. These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis by baseline variables in the PIONEER 9 and PIONEER 10 trials

Aims/Introduction

To assess the impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods

In the Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) 9 and 10 trials, Japanese patients were randomized to once‐daily oral semaglutide (3, 7, or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once‐daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg in PIONEER 9; once‐weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg in PIONEER 10) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks of follow up. An exploratory analysis grouped patients in each trial according to baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c; ≤8.0, >8.0–≤9.0, or >9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25–<30, or ≥30 kg/m²) and, for PIONEER 10 only, by background medication (sulfonylurea, glinide, thiazolidinedione, α‐glucosidase inhibitor, sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor). Efficacy (changes from baseline to week 26 in HbA_1c and bodyweight) and safety were assessed.

Results

Seven hundred and one patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). In both trials, HbA_1c reductions increased as baseline HbA_1c increased; there were no other apparent patterns between the variables investigated and HbA_1c or bodyweight changes. There was one statistically significant subgroup interaction between baseline HbA_1c and estimated treatment differences in bodyweight change for oral semaglutide 14 mg versus placebo in PIONEER 9 (P = 0.0286). Baseline HbA_1c, baseline body mass index and background medication did not appear to affect the proportions of patients reporting adverse events.

Conclusions

Oral semaglutide is effective across a range of baseline subgroups of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, with no unexpected safety findings.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the PIONEER 1, 3, 4 and 8 trials

AIMS

To evaluate, through exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses, the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators in Japanese patients enrolled in the global PIONEER 1, 3, 4 and 8 clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide 3, 7 or 14 mg or comparator (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg or liraglutide 1.8 mg). Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and proportions of patients attaining HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and body weight loss ≥5%, were analysed at week 26 for all Japanese patients in each trial separately using the treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication use). Adverse events (AEs) were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Reductions in HbA1c from baseline in Japanese patients were 1.0% to 1.2% (11.3 mmol/mol to 13.3 mmol/mol) and 1.4% to 1.7% (15.7 mmol/mol to 18.3 mmol/mol) for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively. HbA1c reductions were similar or greater than with comparators. Body weight reductions were 1.0% to 2.7% and 3.7% to 4.7% for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively, and were generally greater with oral semaglutide than comparators. As expected, the main class of AEs was gastrointestinal, and these AEs comprised most commonly mild-to-moderate constipation, nausea and diarrhoea.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide appears efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients across the type 2 diabetes spectrum.

Safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide versus dulaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 10): an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3a trial

BACKGROUND

New glucose-lowering medications need to be investigated in east Asian populations, as the clinical characteristics of type 2 diabetes differ between western and east Asian patients. The PIONEER 10 study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide versus dulaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

PIONEER 10 was an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3a trial done at 36 sites (clinics and university hospitals) in Japan. Patients aged 20 years and older with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1) to receive once-daily oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg, or once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0·75 mg for 52 weeks, as an add-on to their background medication. The primary endpoint was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events over 57 weeks. Supportive secondary endpoints (not controlled for multiplicity) included mean change from baseline in HbA_1c and bodyweight at 52 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03015220.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 10, and May 30, 2017, 492 patients were screened and 458 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=131), 7 mg (n=132), or 14 mg (n=130), or dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=65). 448 (98%) patients completed the trial. Adverse events occurred in 101 (77%) of 131 patients with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 106 (80%) of 132 with oral semaglutide 7 mg, 111 (85%) of 130 with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and 53 (82%) of 65 with dulaglutide. The most common adverse events were infections and gastrointestinal events. Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild and transient constipation and nausea) occurred in a dose-dependent manner with oral semaglutide. Adverse events led to premature treatment discontinuation in four (3%) of 131 patients receiving oral semaglutide 3 mg, eight (6%) of 132 receiving oral semaglutide 7 mg, eight (6%) of 130 receiving oral semaglutide 14 mg, and two (3%) of 65 receiving dulaglutide. No deaths or severe hypoglycaemic events were reported. Based on the treatment policy estimand (ie, regardless of study drug discontinuation or rescue medication use), estimated mean reductions in HbA_1c from baseline (8·3%) to week 52 were -0·9 percentage points (SE 0·1) with oral semaglutide 3 mg, -1·4 percentage points (0·1) with oral semaglutide 7 mg, -1·7 percentage points (0·1) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and -1·4 percentage points (0·1) with dulaglutide (estimated treatment difference -0·3% [95% CI -0·6 to -0·1] for oral semaglutide 14 mg vs dulaglutide; p=0·0170). Estimated mean changes in bodyweight from baseline (72·1 kg) to week 52 were 0·0 kg (SE 0·3) with oral semaglutide 3 mg, -0·9 kg (0·3) with oral semaglutide 7 mg, -1·6 kg (0·3) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and 1·0 kg (0·4) with dulaglutide (estimated treatment difference -2·6 kg [95% CI -3·5 to -1·6] for oral semaglutide 14 mg vs dulaglutide; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Oral semaglutide was well tolerated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Once-daily oral semaglutide significantly reduced HbA_1c (14 mg dose) and bodyweight (7 mg and 14 mg doses) versus weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0·75 mg by week 52.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Dose-response, efficacy, and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 9): a 52-week, phase 2/3a, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Given the unique phenotype of type 2 diabetes in Japanese patients, novel therapies such as oral semaglutide require evaluation in this population. PIONEER 9 aimed to assess the dose-response of oral semaglutide and to compare the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide with placebo and a subcutaneous GLP-1 receptor agonist in a Japanese population.

METHODS

PIONEER 9 was a 52-week, phase 2/3a, randomised, controlled trial done at 16 sites (clinics and university hospitals) in Japan. Japanese patients aged 20 years or older with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes managed by diet or exercise or with oral glucose-lowering drug monotherapy (washed out) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive double-blind once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg) or placebo, or open-label subcutaneous once-daily liraglutide 0·9 mg. The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 with the trial product (primary) estimand (which assumes all patients remained on trial product without rescue medication use) in all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03018028.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 10, and July 11, 2017, 243 patients were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=49), 7 mg (n=49), or 14 mg (n=48), or placebo (n=49), or to liraglutide 0·9 mg (n=48). Changes in HbA_1c from baseline (mean 8·2%) to week 26 were dose-dependent with oral semaglutide (mean change -1·1% [SE 0·1] for oral semaglutide 3 mg, -1·5% [0·1] for 7 mg, and -1·7% [0·1] for 14 mg), -0·1% (0·1) with placebo, and -1·4% (0·1) with liraglutide 0·9 mg. Estimated treatment differences for change in HbA_1c compared with placebo were -1·1 percentage points (95% CI -1·4 to -0·8; p<0·0001) for oral semaglutide 3 mg, -1·5 percentage points (-1·7 to -1·2; p<0·0001) for oral semaglutide 7 mg, and -1·7 percentage points (-2·0 to -1·4; p<0·0001) for oral semaglutide 14 mg. Estimated treatment differences for change in HbA_1c compared with liraglutide 0·9 mg were 0·3 percentage points (95% CI -0·0 to 0·6; p=0·0799) for oral semaglutide 3 mg, -0·1 percentage points (-0·4 to 0·2; p=0·3942) for oral semaglutide 7 mg, and -0·3 percentage points (-0·6 to -0·0; p=0·0272) for oral semaglutide 14 mg. Gastrointestinal events, predominantly of mild or moderate severity, were the most frequently reported class of adverse event with oral semaglutide: constipation was most common, occurring in five to six (10-13%) patients with oral semaglutide, three (6%) with placebo, and nine (19%) with liraglutide 0·9 mg.

INTERPRETATION

This study showed that oral semaglutide provides significant reductions in HbA_1c compared with placebo in a dose-dependent manner in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, and has a safety profile consistent with that of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and Safety of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Compared With Insulin Aspart, Both in Combination With Insulin Degludec, in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: The onset 7 Trial

OBJECTIVE

To confirm efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus insulin aspart (IAsp), both with basal insulin degludec, in a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After a 12-week run-in, this treat-to-target, 26-week, multicenter trial randomized participants (1 to <18 years) to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 260), mealtime IAsp (n = 258), or open-label postmeal faster aspart (n = 259). The primary end point was change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) after 26 weeks of treatment. All available information regardless of treatment discontinuation was used for the evaluation of treatment effect.

RESULTS

At week 26, mealtime and postmeal faster aspart were noninferior to IAsp regarding change from baseline in HbA_1c (P < 0.001 for noninferiority [0.4% margin]), with a statistically significant difference in favor of mealtime faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.17% [95% CI -0.30; -0.03], -1.82 mmol/mol [-3.28; -0.36]; P = 0.014). Change from baseline in 1-h postprandial glucose increment significantly favored mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp at breakfast, main evening meal, and over all meals (P < 0.01 for all). No statistically significant differences in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia were observed. Mean total daily insulin dose was 0.92 units/kg for mealtime faster aspart, 0.92 units/kg for postmeal faster aspart, and 0.88 units/kg for mealtime IAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

In children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, mealtime and postmeal faster aspart with insulin degludec provided effective glycemic control with no additional safety risks versus IAsp. Mealtime faster aspart provided superior HbA_1c control compared with IAsp.

Effect of Additional Oral Semaglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycated Hemoglobin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled With Metformin Alone or With Sulfonylurea: The PIONEER 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Phase 3 trials have not compared oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, with other classes of glucose-lowering therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and assess long-term adverse event profiles of once-daily oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin, 100 mg added on to metformin with or without sulfonylurea, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3a trial conducted at 206 sites in 14 countries over 78 weeks from February 2016 to March 2018. Of 2463 patients screened, 1864 adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin with or without sulfonylurea were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive once-daily oral semaglutide, 3 mg (n = 466), 7 mg (n = 466), or 14 mg (n = 465), or sitagliptin, 100 mg (n = 467). Semaglutide was initiated at 3 mg/d and escalated every 4 weeks, first to 7 mg/d then to 14 mg/d, until the randomized dosage was achieved.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and the key secondary end point was change in body weight, both from baseline to week 26. Both were assessed at weeks 52 and 78 as additional secondary end points. End points were tested for noninferiority with respect to HbA1c (noninferiority margin, 0.3%) prior to testing for superiority of HbA1c and body weight.

RESULTS

Among 1864 patients randomized (mean age, 58 [SD, 10] years; mean baseline HbA1c, 8.3% [SD, 0.9%]; mean body mass index, 32.5 [SD, 6.4]; n=879 [47.2%] women), 1758 (94.3%) completed the trial and 298 prematurely discontinued treatment (16.7% for semaglutide, 3 mg/d; 15.0% for semaglutide, 7 mg/d; 19.1% for semaglutide, 14 mg/d; and 13.1% for sitagliptin). Semaglutide, 7 and 14 mg/d, compared with sitagliptin, significantly reduced HbA1c (differences, -0.3% [95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%] and -0.5% [95% CI, -0.6% to -0.4%], respectively; P < .001 for both) and body weight (differences, -1.6 kg [95% CI, -2.0 to -1.1 kg] and -2.5 kg [95% CI, -3.0 to -2.0 kg], respectively; P < .001 for both) from baseline to week 26. Noninferiority of semaglutide, 3 mg/d, with respect to HbA1c was not demonstrated. Week 78 reductions in both end points were statistically significantly greater with semaglutide, 14 mg/d, vs sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin with or without sulfonylurea, oral semaglutide, 7 mg/d and 14 mg/d, compared with sitagliptin, resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c over 26 weeks, but there was no significant benefit with the 3-mg/d dosage. Further research is needed to assess effectiveness in a clinical setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02607865.

SAT-139 Clinical Impact of Oral Semaglutide Compared with Sitagliptin in T2D on Metformin ± Sulfonylurea: The Pioneer 3 Trial

Long-term effects, safety and tolerability of oral semaglutide (SEMA; a GLP-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1RA]) vs sitagliptin (SITA) as add-on to metformin ± sulfonylurea was investigated in patients (pts) with T2D in a 78-week, double-blind, double-dummy trial. Pts were randomized to once daily oral SEMA 3 mg (N=466), 7 mg (N=466) or 14 mg (N=465), or SITA 100 mg (N=467). Primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c, confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight, both from baseline to week 26. Two estimands were defined (‘treatment policy [TPol] estimand’: treatment effect regardless of trial product discontinuation and rescue medication use; ‘trial product estimand’: treatment effect assuming on trial product without rescue medication use) in all randomized pts. Confirmatory testing was based on the TPol estimand; within each dose level, non-inferiority for the primary endpoint (non-inferiority margin: 0.3%) had to be confirmed before testing superiority for the primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints. Estimated week 26 HbA_1c reductions with 7 and 14 mg were –1.0% and –1.3%, vs –0.8% with SITA, and were superior (TPol estimand; estimated treatment difference vs SITA [ETD; 95% CI]: –0.3% [–0.4, –0.1]; –0.5% [–0.6, –0.4]; both P<0.001). Non-inferiority of 3 mg vs SITA was not confirmed (ETD: 0.2% [0.1, 0.3]; P=0.09); HbA_1c reductions favored SITA (P=0.008). Similar results were obtained with the trial product estimand at week 26 (ETD: –0.3% [–0.4, –0.2]; –0.6% [–0.7, –0.5] for 7 and 14 mg; both P<0.001 favoring oral SEMA; 0.2% [0.1, 0.4] for 3&nbsp;mg; P<0.001 favoring SITA). At week 78, HbA_1c reductions with 14 mg were statistically significantly greater vs SITA for both estimands; there was no statistically significant difference with 3&nbsp;mg (both estimands) or 7 mg (TPol estimand). All oral SEMA doses significantly lowered body weight vs SITA at week 26 for the TPol estimand (ETD: –0.6&nbsp;kg [–1.1, –0.1]; –1.6 kg [–2.0, –1.1]; –2.5 kg [–3.0, –2.0] for 3, 7 and 14 mg; all P<0.02), confirming superiority of 7 and 14 mg (3 mg superiority not tested), and the trial product estimand (ETD: –0.5 kg [–1.0, –0.1]; –1.5 kg [–2.0, –1.1]; –2.6&nbsp;kg [–3.1, –2.1] for 3, 7 and 14&nbsp;mg; all P<0.03). Week 78 body weight reductions were also statistically significant, favoring oral SEMA (all doses, both estimands). Adverse events (AEs) occurred similarly across treatment arms. The most common AE with oral SEMA was transient mild/moderate nausea, affecting 7.5–15.7% of pts. Serious AEs were reported by 13.7%, 10.1% and 9.5% of pts for 3, 7 and 14 mg, and 12.4% for SITA. AEs led to premature trial product discontinuation in 5.6%, 5.8% and 11.6% of pts for 3, 7 and 14 mg, and 5.2% for SITA, mainly due to gastrointestinal AEs. In conclusion, oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg provided statistically superior HbA_1c and body weight reductions at week 26 compared with SITA 100 mg (TPol estimand). Safety and tolerability were consistent with other GLP-1RAs.

Evaluation of Clinical Parameters in Implant Maintenance Phase for Prevention of Peri-implantitis

Aims and Objectives

Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are one of the common biological complications affecting implant success. The present study aimed to evaluate various clinical parameters during implant maintenance phase.

Materials and Methods

The study included patients undergoing implant maintenance phase for 1-year follow-up. The study consists of a total of forty individuals with age ranging from 35 to 65 years. They were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of their history, i.e., Group 1: patients with no history of periodontitis before implant placement and Group 2: patients with a history of periodontitis before implant placement. Among the selected patients, a total of 98 implants were studied. All were individually evaluated for clinical parameters such as gingival index, pocket probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP). All the data obtained were tabulated and analyzed using statistical software SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Quantitative analysis was done using t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results

The mean age of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2 was 58.6 and 62.8 years, respectively, with not much gender difference. The mean plaque index for Group 1 was 0.17 ± 0.20, while for Group 2, it was 0.24 ± 0.14. The mean PPD and mean BOP for Group 1 came to be 2.60 ± 0.42 and 0.42 ± 0.15, respectively, whereas for Group 2, it was 4.08 ± 0.30 and 0.39 ± 0.48, respectively. Only PPD was found to be statistically significantly different between both the groups. Group 1 showed 2.0% peri-implantitis, whereas Group 2 showed 28% peri-implantitis.

Conclusion

Due to increased prevalence of peri-implantitis cases with the increase in usage of implants, it becomes imperative to look up to the etiological factors and contributing factors so that the incidence of these can be minimized.

Pterygoid Implant for Atrophic Posterior Maxilla

Replacement of missing teeth in the posterior maxilla is always a challenge for the treating implant surgeon as the posterior maxilla has several obstacles in the form of quality, quantity, the anatomy of the maxillary sinus, and inaccessibility. To overcome these deficiencies, several surgical procedures such as sinus lift, bone augmentation, tilted implants, short implants, and zygomatic implants were tried. Since these procedures have their own limitations, pterygomaxillary region provides us an excellent place for placement of implant and rehabilitation of posterior maxilla. This case report describes the usage of the pterygomaxillary region for placement of the implant to restore atrophic posterior maxilla, without any additional surgical procedures.