Optical coherence tomography provides sections of tissues in a noncontact and noninvasive manner. The device measures the time delay and intensity of the light scattered or reflected from biological tissues, which results in tomographic imaging of their internal structure. This is achieved by scanning tissues at a resolution ranging from 1 to 15 μm. OCT enables real-time in situ imaging of tissues without the need for biopsy, histological procedures, or the use of X-rays, so it can be used in many fields of medicine. Its properties are not only particularly used in ophthalmology, in the diagnosis of all layers of the retina, but also increasingly in cardiology, gastroenterology, pulmonology, oncology, and dermatology. The basic properties of OCT, that is, noninvasiveness and low wattage of the used light, have also been appreciated in analytical technology by conservators, who use it to identify the quality and age of paintings, ceramics, or glass. Recently, the OCT technique of visualization is being tested in different fields of dentistry, which is depicted in the article.

Innovative computer techniques are starting to be employed not only in academic research, but also in commercial production, finding use in many areas of dentistry. This is conducive to the digitalization of dentistry and its increasing treatment and diagnostic demands. In many areas of dentistry, such as orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery, but also periodontics or prosthetics, only a correct diagnosis ensures the correct treatment plan, which is the only way to restore the patient's health. The diagnosis and treatment plan is based on the specialist's knowledge, but is subject to a large, multi-factorial risk of error. Therefore, the introduction of multiparametric pattern recognition methods (statistics, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI)) is a great hope for both the physicians and the patients. However, the general use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in a dental clinic is not yet realistic and requires work in many aspects - methodical, technological and business. The article presents a review of the latest attempts to apply AI, such as CDSS or genetic algorithms (GAs) in research and clinical dentistry, taking under consideration all of the main dental specialties. Work on the introduction of public CDSS has been continued for years. The article presents the latest achievements in this field, analyzing their real-life application and credibility.

Background: The study aimed to clinically estimate an influence of a 635 nm diode laser on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants, to assess mini-implants loss, and to evaluate a pain level after the treatment. Materials and Methods: The randomized clinical split-mouth trial included 20 subjects (13 women and 7 men; age: 32.5 ± 6.1 years), 40 implants (RMO, West Colfax Ave., Denver, CO, USA) with a diameter 1.4 mm and length of 10 mm. Mini-implants were placed in the area of the attached gingiva between the second premolar and first molar teeth, 2 mm below the mucogingival junction of both sides of the maxilla. Each implant on the right side (G1, n = 20) of the maxilla was irradiated with a diode laser, and the implants on the opposite side (left, G2, n = 20) were a control group (without laser irradiation). The 635-nm laser parameters; dose: 10 J per point (20 J/cm²), time: 100 s per point, two points (irradiation on a buccal, and a palatal side of the alveolus/implant), the total energy per session 20 J. Laser application protocol: immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 30 days after surgery. The total energy after all therapeutic sessions was 140 J. The implants’ stability was measured employing a Periotest device (Periotest Test Value—PTV) immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, and 60 days after the insertion of the mini-implants. Results: We found significantly higher secondary stability, lower mean PTV (6.18 ± 5.30) and (1.51 ± 2.25), for self-drilling mini-implants (G1, test group) in contrast to the control, G2 group (9.17 ± 8.25) and (5.00 ± 3.24), after 30 (p = 0.0003) and 60 days (p = 0.0000). Moreover, the analysis of the mini-implants stability after 635-nm diode laser application revealed significant higher stability in comparison with none irradiated implants (G2 group) after 3 days. (p = 0.0000) There was no significant difference in pain level measured on the NRS-11 scale on both sides of the maxilla. (p = 0.3665) An important finding was that all inserted mini-implants survived during a two-month observation period. Conclusions: 635-nm diode laser at laser irradiation increases the secondary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Titanium currently has a well-established position as the gold standard for manufacturing dental implants; however, it is not free of flaws. Mentions of possible soft-tissue discoloration, corrosion, and possible allergic reactions have led to the development of zirconia dental implants. Various techniques for the surface modification of titanium have been applied to increase titanium implants’ ability to osseointegrate. Similarly, to achieve the best possible results, zirconia dental implants have also had their surface modified to promote proper healing and satisfactory long-term results. Despite zirconium oxide being a ceramic material, not simply a metal, there have been mentions of it being susceptible to corrosion too. In this article, we aim to review the literature available on zirconia implants, the available techniques for the surface modification of zirconia, and the effects of these techniques on zirconia’s biological properties. Zirconia’s biocompatibility and ability to osseointegrate appears unquestionably good. Despite some of its mechanical properties being, factually, inferior to those of titanium, the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. Zirconia implants show very good success rates in clinical research. This is partially due to available methods of surface treatment, including nanotopography alterations, which allow for improved wettability, bone-to-implant contact, and osteointegration in general.

The characteristics of a dental implant surface have a decisive influence on the process of osseointegration. According to the current state of knowledge, surface modification can not only affect the morphology of cells, and in this way have a positive impact on osseointegration. The objective of this study was to compare survival rates and marginal bone loss as well as assess the degree of stability of Straumann SLAactive® and Thomenn Incell® implants with a superhydrophilic surface. Authors present review of data published between 01.01.2008 and 12.31.2016 that was found in PubMed/MEDLINE internet database, An Internet search of databases produced a total of 1230 studies, 20 publications were finally selected for the present study based on the established selection and exclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was performed. A Cumulative Implant Survival Rate (CSR%) was 98.5%, Marginal bone loss (MBL) after 6 months was M = 0.60 mm and 0.6 5 mm after 12 months and secondary stability in a group Thommen implants M = 71.3 ISQ and M = 75.2 ISQ in group of Straumann. Despite certain differences in the values of the studied parameters, both of the systems, i.e. Thommen Inicell and Straumann SLActive, demonstrated a high survival rate, a high level of implant stability and low marginal bone loss.

Introduction. When the era of dental implantology began, the pioneers defined some gold standards used in dental prosthetics treatment for implant-supported restorations. Referring to traditional prosthetics, it was taken for granted that the length of an implant placed in the alveolar bone (the equivalent of the root) should exceed the length of the superstructure. Aim of the Study. The aim of the study was to determine whether implant length and the crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio influence implant stability and the loss of the surrounding marginal bone and whether short implants can be used instead of sinus augmentation procedures. Material and Methods. The patients participating in the study (n=30) had one single tooth implant, a short (OsseoSpeed™ L6 Ø4 mm, Implants) or a regular implant (OsseoSpeed L11 and L13 Ø4 mm, DENTSPLY Implants), placed in the maxilla. The evaluation was based on clinical and radiological examination. The crown-to-implant ratio was determined by dividing the length of the crown together with the abutment by the length of the implant placed crestally. Mean crown-to-implant ratios were calculated separately for each group and its correlation with the MBL (marginal bone loss) and stability was assessed. The authors compared the correlation between the C/I ratio values, MBL, and secondary implant stability. Results. Positive results in terms of primary and secondary stability were achieved with both (short and conventional) implants. The MBL was low for short and conventional implants being 0.34±0.24 mm and 0.22±0.46 mm, respectively. No significant correlation was found between the C/I ratio and secondary stability as well as the C/I ratio and the marginal bone loss. Conclusions. Short implants can be successfully used to support single crowns. The study has revealed no significant differences in the clinical performance of prosthetic restorations supported by short implants. Clinical trial registration number is NCT03471000.