Zygomatic implants imply the use of the zygoma as the implant anchorage and have been proposed as a valuable alternative to the invasive classical procedures in cases of severe maxillary atrophy. Despite the numerous manuscripts published in this field, a quantitative analysis of the research products to infer the trends and the status identification of this specific issue was missing, as well as an objective map of this area. Thus, the present scientometric study analyzed all the research papers published within the interval 1990–2021 that included the keyword “zygomatic implants”. Research papers containing the keywords “zygomatic implants” were collected using Web of Science and analyzed with Cytoscape 3.7.2 and Sci software. A total of 654 studies were published between 1990 and 2020, reaching up to 11639 citations in total, with a mean of 17.8 citations per research study. Data show that the number of publications per year is rapidly increasing, as well as the sum of citations per year. While the USA was identified as the most productive country in this field, followed by Italy, Spain, and Brazil, the National Natural Science Foundation of China stands up as the major funding agency, followed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA and the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The analysis of the keywords showed that “zygomatic fractures” represents the most common word within this field, with “complications” as the most recent keyword and “screws” as the keyword used for the longest time. The map of science representing the authors and their collaborations highlighted the existence of multiple small-size research groups that contribute to scientific production, forming highly clustered structures that do not collaborate between them. The present scientometric analysis demonstrates the rising interest in using the zygomatic implants technique as an alternative to the classical ones. The obtained data suggest that the scientific community involved in the study of such a field is highly fragmented, emphasizing the lack of communication among the scientists and research groups.