Aim: The purpose of this study was to obtain data concerning growth factor release within liquid and solid platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) matrices and to estimate the amount of potential interindividual variations as a basis for further preclinical and clinical trials. Therefore, we aimed to determine possible differences in the release of growth factors between liquid and solid PRF. Materials and Methods: Blood samples obtained from four subjects were processed to both liquid and solid PRF matrices using a standard centrifugation protocol. Five growth factors (vascular endothelial growth factor, VEGF; epidermal growth factor, EGF; platelet-derived growth factor-BB, PDGF-BB; transforming growth factor-β1, TGF-β1; and matrix metallopeptidase 9, MMP-9) have been evaluated at six time points by ELISA over a total observation period of 10 days (1 h, 7 h, 1 d, 2 d, 7 d, and 10 d). Results: Growth factor release could be measured in all samples at each time point. Comparing liquid and solid PRF matrices, no significant differences were detected (p > 0.05). The mean release of VEGF, TGFβ-1, PDGF-BB, and MMP-9 raised to a peak at time point five (day 7) in both liquid and solid PRF matrices. VEGF release was lower in liquid PRF than in solid PRF, whereas those of PDGF-BB and MMP-9 were higher in liquid PRF than in solid PRF at all time points. EGF had its peak release already at time point two after 7 h in liquid and solid matrices (hour 7 EGF solid: mean = 180 pg/mL, SD = 81; EGF liquid: mean = 218 pg/mL, SD = 64), declined rapidly until day 2, and had a second slight peak on day 7 in both groups (day 7 EGF solid: mean = 182 pg/mL, SD = 189; EGF liquid: mean = 81 pg/mL, SD = 70). Conclusions: This study detected growth factor release within liquid and solid PRF matrices with little variations. Further preclinical trials are needed to precisely analyze the growth factor release in larger samples and to better understand their effects on wound healing in different clinical indications.

Background: 3D printing is a rapidly developing technology in the healthcare industry and in dentistry. Its application clearly shows that this area of digital dentistry has potential for everyday usage across all fields, including prosthodontics, orthodontics, maxillofacial surgery, and oral implantology. However, despite gaining ground, there is a lack of information about how specialists (dentists and dental technicians) use additive technology. Our research group aimed to investigate the impact of social media on additive manufacturing technology among dental specialists and their everyday usage of 3D printing. Methods: This paper investigated specialists’ everyday usage of 3D printers via an online survey (Google Forms). The survey questions aimed to discover the number of 3D printers used, the accessibility of the devices, the annual cost, and the design programs. Since specialists tend to build online communities on social media, we circulated our study questionnaire using our profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram platforms during our research. Results: A total of 120 responses were received from 20 countries, with the most significant numbers being from Hungary 23.7% (n = 27), the United States 18.4% (n = 21), and the United Kingdom 7.9% (n = 9). Most of the participants were dentists (n = 68) or dental technicians (n = 29), but some CAD/CAM specialists (n = 23) also completed our survey. The participants had an average of 3.8 years (±0.7) of experience in the 3D printing field, and owned a total of 405 printing devices (3.6 on average/person). Conclusions: The impact of social media on this research field is growing increasingly. Hence, we support specialists in joining virtual communities on professional platforms. This article intended to provide a practical overview, feedback, and direction for dentists interested in 3D printing technology. From our survey, we can conclude that additive technology is broadening dental applications and the services that we can provide for our patients.

Intraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry, replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increasing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide. An online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction with their scanners. We surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quarters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The average number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (±0.9), and in total, the cohort used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used computer-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week. Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona Primescan. This study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst Medit and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital workflow in dentistry will continue to grow.

Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses can represent a significant clinical challenge due to limited bone availability and surgical access, among other factors. This review addresses several treatment options to replace missing teeth in posterior maxillary segments, namely the placement of standard implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation, short implants, tilted implants, and distal cantilever extensions. Pertinent technical information and a concise summary of relevant evidence on the reported outcomes of these different therapeutic approaches are presented, along with a set of clinical guidelines to facilitate decision‐making processes and optimize the outcomes of therapy.

Background: The application of blood concentrates has gained popularity in dentistry in recent years. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been discussed frequently due to a high content of growth factors and the option of chair-side manufacturing in a simple centrifugation process. PRF is free from adjuvants and inexpensive to produce. The number of studies reporting beneficial effects of PRF in various clinical applications such as alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor elevation, management and prevention of medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, third molar extractions, and guided bone regeneration in dentistry has increased recently. However, to date, neither clinical recommendations nor guidelines are available. The present narrative review aims to summarize the level of evidence on the clinical application of PRF within the field of oral surgery and implantology. Summary: A literature search in Pubmed and Medline has identified 34 articles as a basis for this narrative review. The effectiveness of the clinical application of PRF has been analyzed for five indications within dentistry: medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, wisdom tooth extraction, guided bone regeneration, sinus floor elevation, and alveolar ridge preservation. The amount of data for third molar extractions, socket preservation, and guided bone regeneration is extensive. Less data were available for the use of PRF in combination with sinus floor elevations. There is a lack of studies with scientific evidence on PRF and medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw; however, studies positively impact patient-related outcome measures. Most studies report on beneficial effects when PRF is additionally applied in intrabony defects. There is no evidence of the positive effects of PRF combined with bone graft materials during sinus floor elevation. However, some benefits are reported with PRF as a sole filling material. Key Messages: Many recently published studies show the positive clinical impact of PRF. Yet, further research is needed to ensure the validity of the evidence.