In a society highly conscious of esthetics, prosthetic rehabilitation of lost teeth with tissue‐integrated implants has gained wide acceptance and demand by patients and clinicians. The backbone of these tissue‐integrated implants is the biotechnical process of osseointegration. Although the concept has been introduced and discussed for ages, the deepening knowledge about its cellular and molecular mechanisms has led the researchers to borrow further into the factors influencing the process of osseointegration. This has aided in the hastening and improving the process of osseointegration by exploiting several, even the minutest, details and events taking place in this natural process. Recently, due to the high esthetic expectations of the patients, the implants are being loaded immediately, which demands a high degree of implant stability. Implant stability, especially secondary stability, largely depends on bone formation and integration of implants to the osseous tissues. Various factors that influence the rate and success of osseointegration can either be categorized as those related to implant characteristics like the physical and chemical macro‐ and microdesign of implants or the bone characteristics like the amount and quality of bone and the local and systemic host conditions, or the time or protocol followed for the functional loading of the dental implant. To address the shortcomings in osseointegration due to any of the factors, it is mandatory that continuous and reliable monitoring of the status of osseointegration is done. This review attempts to encompass the mechanisms, factors affecting, and methods to assess osseointegration, followed by a discussion on the recent advances and future perspectives in dental implantology to enhance the process of osseointegration. The review was aimed at igniting the inquisitive minds to usher further the development of technology that enhances osseointegration.

Rokaya D, et al. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Feb;18(1):27-33. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.1.27

Diane Isabel Selvido, Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai, Nattisa Niyomtham, Apiwat Riddhabhaya, Kadkao Vongsawan, Verasak Pairuchvej, Natthamet Wongsirichat. JKAOMS 2021;47:341-50. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2021.47.5.341

Over the years, the pain has been defined numerous times in several ways. In oral and maxillofacial surgery, the occurrence of pain, especially postoperatively, is anticipated. Pain arises as a combination of various processes after tissue damage. Distinct pain experiences in oral surgery were depicted in several previous studies, adding knowledge to the field. The management of these encounters has been suggested over time, improving treatment approaches in the clinical setting. This review aims to understand the pain and its types and intervention in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials. Materials and Methods The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE. Conclusion Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.

Phyo HE, et al. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;20(4):203-212. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.203