The sinus lift was first described in 1974 and it has proven to be a predictable procedure ever since. The complications of this surgical procedure are reported in the literature to be low, and can include acute maxillary sinusitis, scattering of the grafting material into the sinus cavity, wound dehiscence and Schneiderian membrane perforations. We aimed to evaluate the rate of acute maxillary sinusitis after sinus lift procedures and the appropriate management strategies. Between 2013 and 2015, 245 dental implants were placed in 116 patients (76 males and 40 females) with concomitant bone augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor. The sinus lifting procedure was bilateral in 35 patients and unilateral in 81 patients (a total of 151 sinuses). Maxillary sinusitis occurred in 5 patients (4.3 %). The clinical signs of infection were: headache, locoregional pain, cacosmia, inflammation of the oral buccal mucosa and rhinorrhea or unilateral nasal discharge. A mucosal fistula was observed during inspection in one patient. The management included only the removal of the grafting material in 3 patients, in 1 patient the grafting material was removed together with all the implants, and in 1 patient only 2 implants and the grafting material were removed, 1 implant being left in place. The sinus cavity was irrigated with metronidazole solution and antibiotic therapy with clindamycin and metronidazole was prescribed for 10 days. Subsequently, all signs of infection disappeared within 5 to 7 days and normal sinus function and drainage were restored. Although sinus lift is regarded as a safe and reliable procedure, acute sinusitis is a possible complication which has to be managed immediately in order to reduce the risk of further complications like pansinusitis, osteomyelitis of the maxillary bone, and spreading of the infection in the infratemporal space or orbital cavity. To minimize risk, caution must be taken with all the steps of the procedure, in order not to obliterate the ostium, impairing maxillary sinus clearance.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is a significant health concern that needs to be addressed not only during the initial phase of infection but also after hospitalization. This is the consequence of the various pathologies associated with long COVID-19, which are still being studied and researched. Lung fibrosis is an important complication after COVID-19, found in up to 71% of patients after discharge. Our research is based on scientific articles indexed in PubMed; in the selection process, we used the following keywords: “lung fibrosis”, “fibrosis mediators”, “fibrosis predictors”, “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2 infection”, and “long COVID-19”. In this narrative review, we aimed to discuss the current understanding of the mechanisms of initiation and progression of post-COVID-19 lung fibrosis (PC-19-LF) and the risk factors for its occurrence. The pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis involves various mediators such as TGF-β, legumain, osteopontin, IL-4, IL-6, IL-13, IL-17, TNF-α, Gal-1, Gal-3, PDGF, and FGFR-1. The key cellular effectors involved in COVID-19 lung fibrosis are macrophages, epithelial alveolar cells, neutrophils, and fibroblasts. The main fibrosis pathways in SARS-CoV-2 infection include hypoxemia-induced fibrosis, macrophage-induced fibrosis, and viral-fibroblast interaction-induced fibrosis.

Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition in dental medicine that manifests as an inflammatory process affecting the tissues surrounding dental implants. Peri-implantitis occurs when the soft and hard tissues surrounding these implants become inflamed, leading to progressive destruction of the supporting bone. The etiology of peri-implantitis is multifactorial, involving microbial, host-related, and environmental factors. Microbial involvement in peri-implantitis can be explained either by direct in-situ virulence activation leading to pathogenicity, or by induction of low-grade chronic immune activation, leading to long-term persistence of a pro-inflammatory status. Understanding peri-implantitis is pivotal in maintaining the long-term success of dental implants and improving patient outcomes in implant-supported restorations. Recognizing the etiological factors, including particular bacterial species, genetic predispositions, and environmental influences, is very important for devising effective preventive strategies and targeted interventions.

Full-arch zirconia restorations on implants have gained popularity due to zirconia’s strength and aesthetics, yet they are still associated with challenges like structural fractures, peri-implant complications, and design misfits. Advances in CAD/CAM and digital workflows offer potential improvements, but a technique that consistently addresses these issues in fixed, full-arch, implant-supported prostheses is needed. This novel technique integrates a facially and prosthetically driven treatment approach, which is divided into three phases: data acquisition, restoration design, and manufacturing/delivery. Digital tools, including intraoral scanning and photogrammetry, facilitate accurate implant positioning, while 3D design software enables functional and aesthetic validation before final milling. A dual software approach is used to reverse engineer a titanium bar from the final restoration design, ensuring a superior outcome to other protocols. The restoration incorporates a zirconia–titanium hybrid structure, optimizing strength, flexibility, and weight. The proposed workflow enhances restoration precision and predictability through a prosthetically driven treatment plan, by ensuring passivity and aligning with biological and mechanical principles to promote long-term stability. By starting with the proposed restoration design and reverse engineering the bar, while also allowing for flexibility in material and component choices, this technique accommodates both patient needs and financial considerations. This approach demonstrates potential for improving patient outcomes in full-arch implant restorations by minimizing complications associated with traditional methods. Further research is recommended to validate the technique’s efficacy and broaden its clinical applications.

With rising rates of antimicrobial resistance throughout the world, it is time to revisit antibiotic prescribing policies and practices, and dentistry is an important area for focused intervention, as it accounts for up to 15% of all antimicrobial prescriptions. In this narrative review, we have analyzed the current state of the knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding antimicrobial use among dental professionals, and we have identified a set of seven recurring themes that drive inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in dental medicine. These include: 1. Prescribing antibiotics to delay or avoid dental treatment. 2. Overlooking the 5Ds—dental treatment (source control), dental condition (indication), drug (antibiotic choice), dose, and duration. 3. Relying on education from the distant past and on previous experience. 4. The heterogeneity of (too many) guideline recommendations leads to confusion and over-prescribing. 5. Decreased access to guideline information in private practice. 6. Psychological factors such as pressure to prescribe, comfort prescribing and the weekend effect, and 7. Feeling removed from antimicrobial resistance and externalizing responsibility. Based on the existing knowledge, we propose a framework based on four key pillars for focused intervention: 1. Education. 2. Internalizing responsibility. 3. Recognizing recurring counter-productive practices, and 4. Addressing recurring counter-productive practices. This framework can be applied in different dental settings to ensure best practices for the successful implementation of rational antimicrobial prescribing.