Background: The pterional approach for craniotomy, one of the most used surgical intervention in neurosurgery, results in a series of postoperative changes that, if they persist, affect the patient’s life, social reintegration, and his/her physical and mental recovery. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a questionnaire for indicating directly affected masticatory muscles groups and facial nerve branches, in patients undergoing the pterional approach in neurosurgery, so that the recovery therapy can be monitored and personalized. Methods: A self-reporting questionnaire consisting of 18 items (12 for postoperative masticatory status and 6 for facial nerve branches involvement), validated on fifteen patients, following three steps: items development, scale development, and scale evaluation, was prospectively applied twice, at a one-year interval (T0 and T1), with thirty-two patients suffering from vascular or tumoral pathology and surgically treated through a pterional approach. Results: No statistically significant correlation could be found between postoperative outcomes and age or gender. Facial nerve branch involvement could not be correlated with any of the assessed variables. Pathology and time elapsed from surgery were statistically significantly correlated to preauricular pain on the non-operated side (p = 0.008 and p = 0.034, respectively). Time elapsed from surgery was statistically significantly correlated to the ability to chew hard food, pain while yawning, and preauricular pain during back and forward jaw movements and gradual mouth opening. Conclusions: We created and validated a valuable patient-centered questionnaire that can be employed as a tool for postoperative assessment of directly affected masticatory muscles and groups of facial nerve branches.

Objectives: To compare artificial intelligence (AI) crown design with expert or non-AI computer-aided (CAD) design for single-unit tooth and implant-supported crowns across efficiency, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched from 2016 to 2025 with citation chasing. Eligible studies directly contrasted artificial intelligence-generated or artificial intelligence-assisted crown designs with human design in clinical, ex vivo, or in silico settings. Primary outcomes were design time, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for non-randomized clinical studies, QUIN for bench studies, and PROBAST + AI for computational investigations, with TRIPOD + AI items mapped descriptively. Given heterogeneity in settings and endpoints, a narrative synthesis was used. Results: A total of 14 studies met inclusion criteria, including a clinical patient study, multiple ex vivo experiments, and in silico evaluations. Artificial intelligence design reduced design time by between 40% and 90% relative to expert computer-aided design or manual workflows. Marginal and internal fit for artificial intelligence and human designs were statistically equivalent in multiple comparisons. Mechanical performance matched technician designs in load-to-fracture testing, and modeling indicated stress distributions similar to natural teeth. Overall risk of bias was judged as some concerns across tiers. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence crown design delivers efficiency gains while showing short-term technical comparability across fit, morphology, occlusion, and strength for single-unit crowns in predominantly bench and in silico evidence, with limited patient-level feasibility data. Prospective clinical trials with standardized, preregistered endpoints are needed to confirm durability, generalizability, and patient-relevant outcomes, and to establish whether short-term technical advantages translate into clinical benefit.

This scoping review mapped the clinical readiness of directly additively manufactured (AM) dental ceramics for single-unit definitive restorations (crowns, veneers, and partial-coverage restorations) using a predefined review-specific five-tier readiness framework (R1–R5) designed to organize evidence maturity from restoration-relevant foundational studies to comparative clinical evidence. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO (Dentistry and Oral Sciences Sources), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to February 2026, with citation tracking. Thirty-five sources were included: 31 in vitro studies and 4 clinical studies. Evidence clustered in preclinical tiers, with most studies classified as restoration-level in vitro investigations (R2, 22/35) or foundational specimen-level studies explicitly linked to restorative performance (R1, 9/35); only one feasibility study reached R3 (1/35), three studies provided comparative clinical evidence (R4, 3/35), and no R5-level evidence was identified. The additively manufactured definitive restorations evaluated were zirconia-based. Most restoration-level studies addressed zirconia crowns (18/35), with fewer studies focusing on veneers/laminates (5/35) and occlusal veneers/tabletops (2/35). Across AM routes (most commonly vat photopolymerization ceramic workflows and nanoparticle jetting) outcomes focused on fit/adaptation, manufacturing accuracy, mechanical performance, and aging simulations; clinical studies reported short- to mid-term performance using standardized evaluation criteria. Overall, the evidence suggests technical feasibility and increasing restoration-level evaluation under controlled conditions, but clinical applicability remains preliminary because higher-readiness clinical evidence is still limited. Future work should prioritize standardized reporting, clinically relevant aging/fatigue paradigms, and longer-term comparative clinical studies.

Background: Tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) remain relevant when implant therapy is limited, but their mechanical behavior depends on material selection, connector design, retainer design, prosthesis configuration, and abutment support. This systematic review assessed how these factors affect fracture behavior and stress transmission in tooth-supported FDPs. Materials and Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched for English-language studies published from 1 January 2016 to 15 May 2026. Eligible studies were in vitro mechanical, fatigue, fracture-resistance, or finite element analysis (FEA) studies of tooth-supported FDP designs. Clinical studies were screened during eligibility assessment, but no clinical study met the final inclusion criteria for primary synthesis. In vitro components were appraised with the Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN), and FEA components were appraised with the Risk-of-bias Framework for Dental Finite Element Analysis (ROBFEAD). Findings were synthesized narratively by evidence type and biomechanical theme. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included: 11 in vitro-only studies, 14 FEA-only studies, and four combined experimental and computational studies. No eligible clinical study met the final inclusion criteria. Zirconia-based systems were the most frequent focus. Their behavior depended on connector dimensions, connector shape, framework design, span, retainer configuration, loading direction, abutment selection, periodontal support, and bone support. Larger connector dimensions or greater connector height often improved fracture resistance or reduced modeled stress in zirconia models, but connector area alone did not explain performance across all materials and designs. Conservative FDPs were sensitive to retainer geometry, adhesive-interface behavior, connector design, and abutment support. Conclusions: Current evidence is limited to laboratory and computational studies. Tooth-supported FDP biomechanics should be interpreted as a material, design, and support system, not as a material effect alone.

Background/Objectives: This scoping review mapped clinical, in vitro, and in silico evidence on non-metal primary crowns in telescopic and double-crown systems involving natural teeth, including retention, wear, mechanical behavior, clinical outcomes, and auxiliary retention-control elements. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source through EBSCO, and Web of Science were searched for English-language reports published from 2015 onward. These limits and the exclusion of case reports were predefined in a written, unregistered protocol. Elicit provided supplementary citation discovery, and a targeted backward reference-list check was performed using the same eligibility criteria. Findings and extractable numerical retention outcomes were charted descriptively without formal critical appraisal or quantitative pooling. Results: Forty-eight reports were included, 40 in vitro, one in silico, and seven clinical reports, representing six identifiable cohorts. Two clinical reports arose from the same randomized cohort. The backward reference-list check identified nine additional eligible reports. Clinical evidence was concentrated on zirconia primary crowns with electroformed or electroplated gold secondaries, although two additional short-term trials evaluated zirconia with polymeric secondary structures. Retention varied with the complete material and design combination. Four laboratory reports examined auxiliary retention-control concepts; no clinical study isolated their effects. Conclusions: Clinical evidence remains very limited. Polymeric primary crowns and auxiliary retention-control elements were represented mainly by laboratory evidence. Retention should be interpreted as a system-level outcome. Mixed-support outcomes require support-specific interpretation, and this review does not establish comparative clinical superiority.