Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze sinus lifting procedures and to compare the efficiency of this treatment associated with the second generation of platelet-rich fibrin related to its effects on bone gain and to clarify the regenerative efficacy in sinus lift procedure, whether alone or as a coadjutant to other bone graft materials. The PICOT question was, “In clinical studies with patients needing a maxillary sinus lift (P), does the use of PRF either alone (I) or in conjunction with other biomaterials (C) improve the clinical outcome associated with bone gain and density (O), with at least three months of follow-up (T)?” An electronic search was conducted in the MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Direct, and Scopus databases through a search strategy. A total of 443 articles were obtained from the electronic database search. Sixteen articles met all criteria and were included in this review. Within the limitation of this study and interpreting the results carefully, it was suggested that a higher risk for implant failure after a sinus elevation might be seen in patients with residual bone ≤4 mm, and PRF application was effective, suggesting reducing the time needed for new bone formation.

The goal was to assess dental students’ perception of digital technologies after participating in a CAD/CAM exercise for scanning, designing, and manufacturing computer-aided provisional fixed dental restorations. A survey was conducted among second- (pre-D2 and post-D2), first- (D1, negative control), third-, and fourth-year dental students (D3 and D4, positive controls). Only OSU College of Dentistry students who completed the activity and completed the surveys were included. Seven questions were rated, which evaluated changes in knowledge, skill, interest, the importance of technology availability in an office, patients’ perception of technology, the importance of having the technology, and the expected frequency of clinics utilizing the technology. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. A total of 74 pre-D2 and 77 post-D2 questionnaires were completed. Additionally, 63 D1, 43 D3, and 39 D4 participants responded to the survey. Significant differences were found for “knowledge” and “skill” between the pre-D2 and post-D2 and pre-D2 and control groups (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the post-D2 participants and all the controls in terms of “interest” (p = 0.0127) and preference for in-practice technology availability (p < 0.05). There were significant results between the post-D2 participants and all the controls regarding the importance of technology availability in an office (p < 0.001) and the expected frequency of clinics utilizing the technology (p = 0.01). No significance was found for “value of technology to patients” and “the importance of having the technology”. The presence of technology in practice and in educational academic environments significantly improved students’ interest and perception of their knowledge and skill.

This comprehensive review assessed the integration of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry, offering a transparent overview of developments across dental fields. Covering articles in prosthodontics, orthodontics, implantology, surgery, and radiology, the review included 39 articles on robotics and 16 on AI. Screening adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with searches conducted on Medline, Google Scholar, and IEEE. Incorporating the search strategy, the review used keywords related to dentistry, robotics, and AI. For robotics, 296 articles were screened, resulting in 39 qualifying for qualitative synthesis. A separate AI search on PubMed identified 142 studies within the last decade, with 16 studies selected for a detailed full-text analysis, offering a consolidated overview of the current state-of-the-art knowledge in the AI domain. Geographic distribution highlighted East Asia as a major research contributor. The findings indicate an increasing trend in dentistry robotics since 2000 and, particularly since 2016, in AI dentistry. The majority of the literature fell under the category of basic research. The technology readiness level did not cross “three” (proof of concept) in 41% of all articles. Therefore, the overall literature quality remains low, particularly regarding clinical validation.

Background/Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the impact absorption capacities of thermoformed ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguards and 3D‐printed polyolefin mouthguards used in sports dentistry applications. The objective is to determine whether 3D‐printed polyolefin mouthguards offer superior impact toughness compared to traditional EVA mouthguards commonly used in sports settings.Materials and Methods: Six material samples were assessed: five pressure‐formed EVA mouthguards (PolyShok, Buffalo Dental, Erkoflex, Proform, and Drufosoft) and one 3D‐printed synthetic polymer (polyolefin). The materials were evaluated using a modified American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D256 Test Method A for Izod pendulum impact resistance of plastics. Polyolefin samples were 3D‐printed using fused filament fabrication (FFF) technology. Notably, the FFF process included samples printed with notches placed either parallel or perpendicular to the build direction. This orientation served as a study factor, allowing for comparison of material behavior under different printing conditions. Impact testing was conducted using an Izod impact tester to assess the materials' performance under controlled impact conditions.Results: The study achieved a high power (1.0) in power analysis, indicating strong sensitivity to detect significant differences. Among molded materials, PolyShok showed significantly lower impact toughness compared to others (p = 0.06). The mean impact absorption of EVA materials was 5.4 ± 0.3 kJ/m², significantly lower than polyolefin materials, which demonstrated 12.9 ± 0.7 kJ/m² and superior performance (p = 0.0). Horizontal‐notched polyolefin samples exhibited higher impact strength compared to vertical‐notched samples (p = 0.009).Conclusions: 3D‐printed polyolefin mouthguards exhibited significantly higher impact toughness than thermoformed EVA mouthguards. While EVA materials demonstrated structural robustness, their lower impact resistance and observed tearing in other test specimens suggest the need for alternative testing standards to better reflect real‐world conditions. 3D‐printed mouthguards fabricated with build orientations perpendicular to the direction of impact demonstrate significantly enhanced impact absorption. Further research into manufacturing methods and testing protocols is recommended to optimize mouthguard performance under impact scenarios.

This short communication aimed to acquire and transmit information about inserting CAD/CAM technology in the dental school’s curriculum to better prepare dental students for new approaches. The CAD/CAM system implementation has occurred slowly in the dental curriculum at universities. In 2012, authors evaluated the use of CEREC, showing an educational tool impacting the cost-effectivity for patients. A similar result was found in 2013, with an appreciation of the marginal fit and esthetic obtained. In 2014, CAD/CAM was incorporated into the predoctoral curriculum at the Indiana University School of Dentistry, showing good or excellent overall learning. In 2017, a CAD/CAM system was implemented at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry’s predoctoral implant program, which had an increased preference and proportion of implant restorations made digitally. In 2018, a German dental school used CAD/CAM in the curriculum of prosthetic education, obtaining a clear tendency for the use of this technology. In 2023, pre-doctoral dental students in the U.S.A. received a questionnaire that significantly improved their knowledge and attitude to using this technology; otherwise, student satisfaction was non-significant. In conclusion, integrating CAD/CAM technology into the curriculum has become an essential component of modern dental education.