Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a semi-crystalline linear polycyclic thermoplastic that has been proposed as a substitute for metals in biomaterials. PEEK can also be applied to dental implant materials as a superstructure, implant abutment, or implant body. This article summarizes the current research on PEEK applications in dental implants, especially for the improvement of PEEK surface and body modifications. Although various benchmark reports on the reinforcement and surface modifications of PEEK are available, few clinical trials using PEEK for dental implant bodies have been published. Controlled clinical trials, especially for the use of PEEK in implant abutment and implant bodies, are necessary.

Background: Robotics is progressing rapidly. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the basic and applied research status of robotics in dentistry and discusses its development and application prospects in several major professional fields of dentistry. Methods: A literature search was conducted on databases: MEDLINE, IEEE and Cochrane Library, using MeSH terms: [“robotics” and “dentistry”]. Result: Forty-nine articles were eventually selected according to certain inclusion criteria. There were 12 studies on prosthodontics, reaching 24%; 11 studies were on dental implantology, accounting for 23%. Scholars from China published the most articles, followed by Japan and the United States. The number of articles published between 2011 and 2015 was the largest. Conclusions: With the advancement of science and technology, the applications of robots in dental medicine has promoted the development of intelligent, precise, and minimally invasive dental treatments. Currently, robots are used in basic and applied research in various specialized fields of dentistry. Automatic tooth-crown-preparation robots, tooth-arrangement robots, drilling robots, and orthodontic archwire-bending robots that meet clinical requirements have been developed. We believe that in the near future, robots will change the existing dental treatment model and guide new directions for further development.

Purpose: This literature review was performed to assess whether implant failures are associated with titanium allergy. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases up to April 2021 was conducted, and the obtained articles were independently assessed by two reviewers. Articles describing cases of implant failure in which the cause of implant failure was only identified as allergy were included. Results: Twelve studies were included. Eight studies identified Ti allergy by clinical examinations, of which four used patch tests, three used the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT)/memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay (MELISA), and one used both tests. Nine studies reported cases of titanium hypersensitivity in combination with other systemic allergy-related disorders, with eight cases also showing positive results for Ni, Hg, Cr, and Co hypersensitivity. Ten papers reported the improvement of symptoms after the removal of the Ti implants and their replacement with zirconia implants, and two of these papers showed good results. Conclusion: Cases of probable titanium allergy included those with true titanium allergies and those with a potentially different cause. However, the differentiation of these cases is difficult. Since no definitive method has been established for diagnosing titanium allergy, a comprehensive diagnosis based on the clinical course and clinical examination using a patch test/LTT/MELISA is necessary. Implant treatment should be performed with caution in patients with any preoperative allergies.

The mechanical properties of seven denture adhesives and eight oral moisturizers, all of which are commercially available, were evaluated using a texture profile analysis. A new assessment chart is proposed for the selection criteria of denture adhesive and oral moisturizers using a radar chart with three axes: hardness, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness.

In this study, we evaluated the reliability and reproducibility of widely implemented salivary flow rate and oral dryness tests. In experiment 1, twenty young and healthy Japanese participants volunteered to participate. For each participant, the oral moisture (OM) level, unstimulated whole saliva volume (U-WSV), and stimulated whole saliva volume (S-WSV) were measured at the same time on two separate days. In experiment 2, twenty-seven patients who were over 65 years of age volunteered to participate. The OM level and U-WSV were measured at the same time on two separate days. In Experiment 1, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) corresponding to the S-WSV, U-WSV, and OM level were 0.23, 0.28, and 0.16, respectively, for the young participants. In Experiment 2, the ICCs corresponding to the U-WSV/spitting and OM level were 0.83 and 0.12, respectively, for the older participants. The results of Bland–Altman analysis confirmed the absence of systematic error, with the exception of the OM level results in Experiment 2, which indicated systematic bias. In conclusion, we believe that there is currently no consistent and reliable screening test for assessing salivary flow rate and oral dryness, although the spitting test was determined to be highly reliable.