Maxillary sinus floor elevation, via the lateral approach, is one of the most predictable bone augmentation procedures performed in implant dentistry. but both intra‑ and postoperative complications can occur, and some of them are severe. Our aim is as follows: To review the pertinent literature on the topic, especially assessing the risk factors related to complications. To give clinical recommendations to minimize intra‑ and postoperative complications with the ultimate scope of improving the standard of clinical care and patient safety.

Background: Cephalometry is fundamental in diagnosis, analysis, and planning of orthodontic-surgical treatment as it reveals skeletal relationship between the upper and lower jaw as well as facial aesthetic parameters. Nevertheless, 3D cephalometry has still not become the exam of choice in orthognathic treatment even though today CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) is routinely used in other branches of dentistry. Methods: In a sample of 13 patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery a chin-vertex CBCT exam was prescribed prior to orthodontic treatment (OT) and 12 months after surgery (T1). The DICOM files uploaded to MaterialiseSimplant Ortho software pro 2.1 (Materialise Co., Leuven, Belgium) were analyzed following the multiplane 3D Total Face cephalometry protocol (TFA). Results: Results comparing pre-op and post-op TFA 3D cephalometry, were then evaluated considering reference values reported in literature. The CBCT, carried out pre- and post-surgery, were subsequently analyzed employing the superimposition method using cranial base as reference. The aim of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods in orthognathic surgery. Conclusions: Multiplane 3D TFA allows the clinician to locate where major or minor skeletal discrepancies are found with respect to ideal parameters and is also useful in classifying skeletal intermaxillary relation. The superimposition method is highly intuitive but does not provide information on the quantity and location of osteotomic movement.

Aim: Technology improvement and a better understanding of sinus anatomy and wound healing in the past decade have allowed the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques. This systematic review focused on identifying and describing these techniques for vertical and lateral sinus augmentation (VSA and LSA).Materials and Methods: Electronic and hand search were conducted to screen the literature published from January 2003 to May 2024. The selected studies had to include detailed techniques for minimally invasive SA. Data extraction included the study types, sample size, technique/instrument details, and outcome measurements.Results: A total of 36 articles (27 VSA, 8 LSA with an additional 1 article included both procedures) with 2732 sinus augmentation met the inclusion criteria. Minimally invasive VSA includes the use of modified rotary instruments with stopper, balloon, hydraulic pressure, digital planning, endoscope, and operating microscope. These techniques aim for conservative flap reflection, precise sinus window preparation, and/or controlled sinus membrane elevation. Most of the selected studies (n = 15) did not report the incidence of sinus membrane perforation.Conclusion: Within the limitations of this review, minimally invasive VSA and LSA achieved sufficient sinus augmentation and implant success with the potential advantages of reduced surgical complications and morbidity. Comparative studies with defined outcomes are encouraged to further validate these useful minimally invasive techniques for SA.

(1) Background: Esthetic regenerative medicine is increasingly in demand for facial and neck rejuvenation due to its proven efficacy, safety profile, and minimal downtime. This study aimed to evaluate the role of standardized assessment tools in optimizing the outcomes of non-invasive regenerative esthetic technologies, both during the treatment course and in follow-up. (2) Methods: A literature review of the main articles published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted to identify high-quality studies addressing the use of validated esthetic scales and questionnaires (patient-reported outcomes) for evaluating the effectiveness of non-invasive regenerative treatments for the face and neck using accessible clinical tools such as photographs and 3D facial scanning. (3) Results: Clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) can be collected using standardized and reproducible photographic documentation and facial scans. The esthetic scales and classifications target both specific facial areas (e.g., upper third, perioral, periorbital) and overall skin appearance. Furthermore, advanced software allows overlay facial scan analysis and wrinkle mapping for precise quantification of improvements. In addition to objective CROs, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer essential insights into perceived esthetic changes, satisfaction, and emotional well-being, completing a multidimensional evaluation of treatment efficacy. (4) Conclusions: Standardized evaluation protocols based on accessible tools such as clinical photographs, 3D facial scans, and validated PRO questionnaires are essential for guiding effective, personalized regenerative treatments. Their integration into routine practice enhances clinical decision-making and patient satisfaction. While advanced tools like dermal probes may further refine assessments, they require specific expertise and resources and may be less practical for daily clinical use.