Titanium implants are widely used on an increasing number of patients in orthopedic and dental medicine. Despite the good survival rates of these implants, failures that lead to important socio-economic consequences still exist. Recently, research aimed at improving implant fixation, a process called osseointegration, has focused on a new, innovative field: systemic delivery of drugs. Following implant fixation, patients receive systemic drugs that could either impair or enhance osseointegration; these drugs include anabolic and anti-catabolic bone-acting agents in addition to new treatments. Anabolic bone-acting agents include parathyroid hormone (PTH) peptides, simvastatin, prostaglandin EP4 receptor antagonist, vitamin D and strontium ranelate; anti-catabolic bone-acting agents include compounds like calcitonin, biphosphonates, RANK/RANKL/OPG system and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM). Examples of the new therapies include DKK1- and anti-sclerostin antibodies. All classes of treatments have proven to possess positive impacts such as an increase in bone mineral density and on osseointegration. In order to prevent complications from occurring after surgery, some post-operative systemic drugs are administered; these can show an impairment in the osseointegration process. These include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton pump inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The effects of aspirin, acetaminophen, opioids, adjuvants, anticoagulants and antibiotics in implant fixations are not fully understood, but studies are being carried out to investigate potential ramifications. It is currently accepted that systemic pharmacological agents can either enhance or impair implant osseointegration; therefore, proper drug selection is essential. This review aims to discuss the varying effects of three different classes of treatments on improving this process.

Articular cartilage has a complex structure and metabolism which allow for a proper movement within joints. Nevertheless, several systemically administered pharmacological agents have been proved to improve the anabolic response in the case of cartilage lesions. Alendronate, glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, hyaluronic acid, collagen hydrolysate, vitamin C, vitamin D, aspirin and strontium ranelate have shown positive results in clinical trials. On the other hand, calcitonin, risedronate, doxycycline, and celecoxib did not slow the progression of cartilage lesions in clinical trials. Other systemic drugs or supplements such as teriparatide, leptin, zoledronic acid, bevacizumab, atorvastatin, omega-3 fatty acid, naringin, MSM, selenium, zinc, magnesium, resveratrol, donepezil, naproxen, etodolac, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), lithium chloride, and rebamipide showed positive results in in vitro and animal studies but clinical trials are needed to confirm the positive impact on cartilage repair. A number of molecules, not currently available on the market, have also shown promising results in cartilage healing, such as licofelone, sclerostin, cyclopamine, cyclodextrin polysulfate, AG-041R, osteoprotegerin, rhMK, β-cryptoxanthine, NF-κb essential modulator binding domain (NBD), TGF-β-neutralizing antibody, osteogenic protein-1 (BMP-7), fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), and RhBMP-2. Currently available systemic drugs that impair cartilage healing are represented by corticosteroids, vitamin A, and fluoroquinolones.

In the context of the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic, the medical system has been subjected to many changes. Face-to-face treatments have been suspended for a period of time. After the lockdown, dentists have to be aware of the modalities to protect themselves and their patients in order not to get infected. Dental practitioners are potentially exposed to a high degree of contamination with SARS-CoV-2 while performing dental procedures that produce aerosols. It should also be noted that the airways, namely the oral cavity and nostrils, are the access pathways for SARS-CoV-2. In order to protect themselves and their patients, they have to use full personal protective equipment. Relevant data regarding this pandemic are under evaluation and are still under test. In this article, we made a synthesis about the way in which SARS-CoV-2 spreads, how to diagnose a novel corona virus infection, what the possible treatments are, and which protective personal equipment we can use to stop its spreading.

Bone is a complex tissue with unique properties such as high strength and regeneration capabilities while carrying out multiple functions. Bone regeneration occurs both in physiological situations (bone turnover) and in pathological situations (e.g. fractures), being performed by osteoblasts and osteoclasts. If this process is inadequate, fracture nonunion or aseptic loosening of implants occurs and requires a complex treatment. Exogenous factors are currently used to increase bone regeneration process when needed, such as bisphosphonates and vitamin D, but limitations do exist. Cannabinoid system has been shown to have positive effects on bone metabolism. Cannabinoids at bone level mainly act on two receptors called CB-1 and CB-2, but GPR55, GPR119, TPRV1, TPRV4 receptors may also be involved. The CB-2 receptors are found in bone cells at higher levels compared to other receptors. Endocannabinods represented by anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, can stimulate osteoblast formation, bone formation and osteoclast activity. CB-2 agonists including HU-308, HU-433, JWH133, and JWH015 can stimulate osteoblast proliferation and activity, while CB-2 antagonists such as AM630 and SR144528 can inhibit osteoclast differentiation and function. CB-1 antagonist AM251 has been shown to inhibit osteoclast differentiation and activity, while GPR55 antagonist cannabidiol increases osteoblast activity and decreases osteoclast function. An optimal correlation of dose, duration, moment of action, and affinity can lead to an increased bone regeneration capacity, with important benefits in many pathological situations which involve bone tissue. As adverse reactions of cannabinoids have not been described in patients under controlled medication, cannabinoids can represent future treatment for bone regeneration.

Background and objectives: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess the performance of short implants in comparison with standard implants and sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla. Materials and methods: The protocol of the study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022375320). An electronic search on three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed to find randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with ≥5 years’ follow-up, published until December 2022. Risk of bias (ROB) was calculated using Cochrane ROB. A meta-analysis was performed for primary (implant survival rate, ISR) and secondary outcomes (marginal bone loss, MBL; biological and prosthetic complications). Results: Of 1619 articles, 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The ISR showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.97 [0.94, 1.00] (CI 95%), p = 0.07. The MBL indicated a WMD of −0.29 [−0.49, −0.09] (CI 95%), p = 0.005. Biological complications showed a RR of 0.46 [0.23, 0.91] (CI 95%), p = 0.03. Prosthetic complications showed a RR of 1.51 [0.64, 3.55] (CI 95%), p = 0.34. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that short implants might be used as an alternative to standard implants and sinus floor elevation. After 5 years, in terms of ISR, standard implants and sinus floor elevation showed a higher survival rate comparted to short implants, although statistical significance was not achieved. Future RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to draw a clear conclusion on the advantages of one method over another.

Suppurative head and neck infections of odontogenic origin are the most frequent type of head and neck infections. According to the literature, 7-10% of all antibiotics are currently prescribed for their treatment. Since penicillin was invented, the overall antibiotic sensitivity and resistance pattern of the isolated pathogenic microflora has continuously changed. The response of microorganisms to antibiotics and the development of resistance to their action is a purely evolutive process characterized by genetic mutations, acquisition of genetic material or alteration of gene expression and metabolic adaptations. All this makes challenging and difficult the correct choice of empirical antibiotic treatment for head and neck space infections even today. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the literature and to evidence the most frequent locations of odontogenic head and neck infections, the dominant pathogenic microbial flora, the genetic mutations and metabolic changes necessary for bacteria in order to aquire antibiotic resistance and as well its susceptibility and resistance to common antibiotics. We also aimed to highlight the possible changes in bacterial resistance to antibiotics over time, and to assess whether or not there is a need for fundamental changes in the empirical antibiotic treatment of these infections and show which these would be.