Background and Objectives: The ever more complex modern dental education requires permanent adaptation to expanding medical knowledge and new advancements in digital technologies as well as intensification of interdisciplinary collaboration. Our study presents a newly developed computerized method allowing virtual case simulation on modular digital dental models and 3D-printing of the obtained digital models; additionally, undergraduate dental students’ opinion on the advanced method is investigated in this paper. Materials and Methods: Based on the digitalization of didactic dental models, the proposed method generates modular digital dental models that can be easily converted into different types of partial edentulism scenarios, thus allowing the development of a digital library. Three-dimensionally printed simulated dental models can subsequently be manufactured based on the previously obtained digital models. The opinion of a group of undergraduate dental students (n = 205) on the proposed method was assessed via a questionnaire, administered as a Google form, sent via email. Results: The modular digital models allow students to perform repeated virtual simulations of any possible partial edentulism cases, to project 3D virtual treatment plans and to observe the subtle differences between diverse teeth preparations; the resulting 3D-printed models could be used in students’ practical training. The proposed method received positive feedback from the undergraduate students. Conclusions: The advanced method is adequate for dental students’ training, enabling the gradual design of modular digital dental models with partial edentulism, from simple to complex cases, and the hands-on training on corresponding 3D-printed dental models.

Background/Objectives: Digital Smile Design software tools facilitates aesthetic planning and improves communication between clinicians, patients, and dental laboratories. These software tools have been developed to support facial and dental analysis and to assist users in creating an ideal smile integrated with the patient’s appearance. This study aimed to compare the usability of three DSD software tools—Preteeth AI Pro (version 6.0.0), SmileCloud, and Medit Link (version 3.4.3)—using the System Usability Scale. Methods: Twenty-three prosthodontists and prosthodontics residents evaluated each tool following a standardized usage protocol. After completing Digital Smile Designs in each application, participants filled out a 10-item System Usability Scale questionnaire (score 0–100). Descriptive statistics were calculated, and intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results: Mean System Usability Scale scores were 74.24 (Preteeth AI Pro), 80.33 (SmileCloud), and 73.15 (Medit Link). SmileCloud obtained the highest score (A−grade, Curved Grading Scale), indicating “good to very good” usability. No statistical significances were found between the three software tools (F = 1.04, p = 0.36). Conclusions: All three Digital Smile Design software tools achieved System Usability Scale scores above the usability benchmark of 68, with SmileCloud demonstrating the most favorable user experience. These findings may assist clinicians in selecting intuitive and efficient Digital Smile Design platforms to optimize aesthetic treatment workflows.

The aim of the present systematic review was to compare three ridge augmentation procedures in order to assist clinicians in finding the ideal surgical method relative to the horizontal bone gain needed and the width of the alveolar ridge available. An electronic and hand literature search was performed in the online databases PubMed‑Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Web of Science, and various specialized journals, between January 2017 and December 2022. The included studies were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non‑randomized Studies score and Cochrane's RoB tool. The primary variable studied in the meta‑analysis was the final bone gain. The implant survival rate and initial ridge width were the secondary variables. Then four studies on ridge expansion via osseodensification (OD), seven on guided bone regeneration (GBR) and seven on the ridge‑split technique (RS) were included in the review; 17 out of 18 were selected for meta‑analysis. The mean horizontal bone gain for OD was 2.151 mm [1.327‑2.975 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI)], for GBR was 4.036 mm (3.351‑4.772 mm 95%CI) and for RS was 3.661 mm (2.991‑4.399 mm 95%CI). The results were statistically significant (P=0.002). GBR reported the most bone gain horizontally, followed closely by RS and then OD. OD is a recent technique that should be taken into account when discussing the protocols of horizontally atrophied ridge rehabilitation.

Background: Partial edentulism presents an ongoing clinical challenge, and the optimal choice of prosthetic rehabilitation remains a topic of debate. Purpose: This review compares three abutment configurations for removable dentures—natural teeth, implants, and mixed support. The goal was to determine which treatment offers the best longevity, lowest complication rates, and highest survival. Materials and Methods: A systematic search following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the PICO framework was conducted using PubMed and Scopus, focusing on clinical studies of IARPDs published between 2022 and 2024. Studies were selected based on predefined eligibility criteria. Descriptive analysis of survival and complication outcomes was performed and represented graphically. Results: Nineteen studies were included: four on IARPDs, six on conventional RPDs, and five on IODs. Main parameters included prosthesis survival, abutment (tooth/implant) survival, and complication rates. IARPDs showed favorable implant survival and lower rates of abutment tooth loss than conventional RPDs. Conventional dentures demonstrated lower performance. IODs had the highest survival over mid-term follow-up periods. Discussion: IARPDs demonstrate clinical viability, especially in cases requiring strategic abutment preservation. Although the data are limited by sample size and short follow-up, IARPDs show potential advantages in preserving natural dentition and improving load distribution. Conclusions: IARPDs are a reliable treatment option for partial edentulism, combining implant support with removable versatility. More long-term studies are needed to strengthen current findings, but the existing evidence supports their use in contemporary prosthodontics, in selected cases.

Background/Objectives: Accurate three-dimensional (3D) facial scanning is increasingly important in digital dentistry for diagnosis, treatment planning, and virtual patient creation. Multiple facial scanning technologies are available; however, their metric reliability varies depending on acquisition principles and anatomical orientation. This study aimed to evaluate the trueness, orientation-dependent performance (vertical midline versus horizontal facial measurements), and scanning time of four facial scanning technologies using calibrated manual anthropometry as the reference standard. Methods: Thirty dentate adult participants received adhesive fiducial markers on five predefined facial landmarks. Four linear facial distances were measured clinically using a digital caliper and compared with corresponding measurements obtained from standardized 3D facial scans. Digital measurements were extracted following uniform metric normalization. Inter-examiner reliability, measurement trueness, orientation-related differences, and scanning time were analyzed. Results: Inter-examiner reliability was excellent for both clinical and digital measurements (ICC > 0.93). All facial scanning technologies significantly overestimated manual distances (p < 0.001). The structured-light scanning system showed the smallest deviations (typically <1 mm) and the highest overall accuracy, followed by the depth-fusion system, while photogrammetry-based and NeRF-based approaches demonstrated larger errors, frequently exceeding 2–3 mm. Horizontal facial distances consistently showed greater deviations than vertical midline measurements across all systems. Scanning time differed significantly between technologies, with passive image-based approaches being the fastest and NeRF-based acquisition requiring the longest capture time. Conclusions: Active structured-light facial scanning demonstrated the highest trueness for linear facial anthropometry, whereas passive photogrammetry and NeRF-based approaches showed lower metric trueness and are currently more suitable for educational applications.