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.

BACKGROUND 3D printing is a rapidly developing technology in the healthcare industry and in dentistry as well. Regarding its application it shows clear evidence that this area of digital dentistry is in everyday usage among all of the fields including prosthodontics, orthodontics, maxillofacial surgery and oral implantology. In spite of gaining ground, there is a lack of information about how the specialists (dentists, dental technicians) use the additive technology. OBJECTIVE Our research group aims to investigate the impact of social media on the additive manufacturing technology among dental specialists and the everyday usage of 3D printing. METHODS The paper investigates the everyday usage of 3D printing by the specialists via an online survey (Google Form). The questions of the survey try to draw a conclusion about the number of 3D printers used, the accessibility of devices, the annual cost and the designing programs. Since the specialists tend to build online communities on social media, during our research we spread the questionnaire by our platforms on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. RESULTS The 114 feedback were from 20 countries, most of them were from Hungary (23.7%), the United States (18.4%), and the United Kingdom (7.9%). Most of the participants were dentists (62) and dental technicians (29) but also CAD / CAM specialists (23) filled out our survey. The participants had an average of 3.8 years (± 0.7) of experience in the 3D printing field, and own a total of 405 printing devices (3.6 on average/person). CONCLUSIONS The impact of social media on this research field is more and more growing hence we support the specialists to join the virtual communities on the adequate platforms. The article intended to provide a practical overview of feedback and give a direction for those dentist colleagues who are willing to invest in this technology. From our survey we could state that additive technology is widening our applications and our services, what we can provide for our patients.

Background/Objectives: As current methods of measuring blood glucose levels are inconvenient and painful for patients, using salivary glucose as a non-invasive biomarker to estimate glucose levels may improve patient compliance. This study aims to quantify the association between salivary glucose levels and blood glucose levels and to assess how heterogeneity between studies and the methodological differences affect the potential clinical use of salivary glucose. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were used for this review, and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023471213). Four databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane’s Library Trials, and Web of Science. The search was conducted on 22 November 2023 and updated on 18 August 2025. No filters were applied for the search. Human studies, where paired salivary and blood samples were taken both from patients with diabetes and healthy individuals after at least 8 h of fasting, were included in the analysis. We extracted correlation coefficients and group means differences. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2, and the between-study heterogeneity was examined using random-effects models. Results: Through the systematic search, 15,162 articles were found, 25 of which were included in our meta-analysis. The analysis showed a weak correlation between whole-mouth saliva samples and blood samples (r² value: 0.05) and a slightly stronger correlation between parotid saliva samples and blood samples (r² value: 0.11). These low r² values reflect weak associations and are reported descriptively. The difference between the mean salivary glucose level of patients with diabetes and controls was 4.43 mg/dL (95% CI: 2.05; 6.80). The high heterogeneity (I² values approaching 100% for mean difference analyses) limits the interpretability of pooled estimates. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates that salivary and blood glucose levels associate weakly, and the study results are highly heterogeneous. Given the weak and highly heterogeneous associations observed across studies, current evidence does not support the use of salivary glucose measurement as an alternative to blood glucose measurement for the time being. Further standardized research is required before any conclusion about clinical applicability can be drawn.