Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic is not solely limited to SARS-CoV-2 infection. It may also be related to social, cultural, and environmental factors, which may act as additional stressors. The aim of the current study was to explore the association between psychological distress and subjective overload among dentists in different countries, and whether it is associated with COVID-19-related factors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1302 dentists from China, India, Israel, Italy, and the UK, who filled out demographics data, COVID-19-related factor questions, subjective overload, and psychological distress scales. Our findings showed that the positive association between subjective overload and psychological distress was different among countries, suggesting higher rate of intensity in Italy compared to China, India, and Israel (the UK was near significance with China and Israel). The interaction variable of the subjective overload × psychological distress was significantly associated with a particular country, with those individuals reporting fear of contracting COVID-19 from patients, fear of their families contracting COVID-19, and receiving enough professional knowledge regarding COVID-19. Given the above, dentists were found to have elevated levels of subjective overload and psychological distress, which differed among the countries, presumably due to certain background issues such as social, cultural, and environmental factors.

To determine the current status and accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) applications by examining the associated clinical and experimental outcomes. PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2000 and November 2023, and focusing on robotic CAIS in dental implant surgery. All search results were then manually reviewed to identify only the pertinent articles. Only in vitro and clinical studies were included in this narrative review, with implant placement accuracy considered the main outcome. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 21 studies (with 1085 implant sites); of them, 8 were clinical studies, 12 were in vitro studies, and 1 included both an in vitro study and a case series. The ranges of the mean implant shoulder, apical, and angular deviations were respectively 0.43-1.04 mm, 0.53-1.06 mm, and 0.77°-3.77° in the clinical studies and 0.23-1.04 mm, 0.24-2.13 mm, and 0.43°-3.78° in the in vitro studies, respectively. The accuracy of robotic CAIS in dental implant procedures appears to be within the clinically acceptable ranges. However, further relevant clinical trials validating the existing evidence are needed. Robotic CAIS can achieve clinically acceptable implant placement accuracy. This innovative technology may improve the precision and success rates of dental implant procedures, with benefit for surgeons and patients.

The aim of this model-base study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in a fresh extraction socket and healed ridge. A randomized in vitro study was conducted. Twenty 3D-printed maxillary models and 80 implants were used. One experienced researcher placed the implants using either the static navigation or dynamic navigation system. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. In the fresh sockets, the mean deviation was 1.24 ± 0.26 mm (entry point), 1.69 ± 0.34 mm (apical point), and 3.44 ± 1.06° (angle discrepancy) in the static CAIS group, and 0.60 ± 0.29 mm, 0.78 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.47 ± 1.09° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. In the healed ridge, the mean deviation was 1.09 ± 0.17 mm and 1.40 ± 0.30 mm, and 2.12 ± 1.11° in the static CAIS group, and 0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 0.98 ± 0.37 mm, and 1.69 ± 0.76° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. Compared with the static CAIS system, the dynamic CAIS system resulted in significantly lower entry and apical errors in both fresh sockets and healed ridges. Differences in bone morphology therefore seem to have little effect on accuracy in the dynamic CAIS group.

Implant placement in the posterior maxilla is often complicated by the insufficient bone volume. While transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) has been proven as a predictable surgical procedure to increase the bone height in the posterior maxilla, questions in regard to the necessity of the bone grafting during the sinus lift and the question of whether TSFE could be performed when the residual bone height is below 5 mm are still debated. Furthermore, high-quality evidence comparing the clinical outcome of transalveolar sinus floor elevation with osteotome and modified sinus floor elevation with crestal non-cutting drills is limited. One hundred twenty adult patients who fit the inclusion criteria are being recruited from the Peking University Hospital of Stomatology First Clinical Division (Beijing, China). All patients are assigned to one of four groups according to a table of random numbers. Participants will receive (1) TSFE using osteotomes with bone grafting, (2) TSFE using osteotomes without bone grafting, (3) modified TSFE with bone grafting, or (4) modified TSFE without bone grafting. In a one-year follow-up period, implant survival rates, complications, implant stability, bone remodeling around the implant, and patient-reported outcome (visual analog scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be observed and documented. The implant stability will be gauged by the resonance frequency analysis six times (at baseline and weeks 6, 8, 12, 16, and 26), and the bone remodeling will be observed and compared via radiographic examinations. The result of the trial will potentially contribute to better decision making in atrophic posterior maxilla when implant placement is needed. Therefore, if the outcome is deemed favorable, the use of the modified TSFE would achieve an outcome equivalent to that of the traditional TSFE while introducing less trauma and postoperative discomforts. Separately, whether the bone graft procedure is necessary for the TSFE will also be discussed. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier number NCT03445039 . Registered on 26 February 2018.