Background/Objectives: Impacted teeth are a common phenomenon, in both young and adult populations, as extensively documented in the literature. This study aims to systematically assess the global prevalence of impacted third molars and to analyze their demographic predictors. Methods: The present review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and includes studies published until December 2023. Three databases (MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane) were searched, and studies reporting prevalence rates and demographic predictors of impacted third molars were selected for analysis. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled prevalence and assess demographic variations. Results: This review yielded 98 studies involving 183,828 subjects. The pooled prevalence of impacted third molars was 36.9% [95% CI: 33.1–40.7%] per subject and 46.4% [95% CI: 36.7–56.1%] per tooth, with the highest rates in Asia (43.1% [95% CI: 34.6–51.7%]) and the lowest in Europe (24.5% [95% CI: 16.1–33.9%]). An odds ratio of 1.173 [95% CI: 1.021–1.347%] indicated a slightly higher likelihood of third molar impaction among women compared to men, and mandibular third molar impaction was more frequent than maxillary impaction. The meta-regression indicated insufficient consistency for the geographic area to be considered a source of heterogeneity in the prevalence of impacted third molars. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis highlights the substantial prevalence of impacted third molars worldwide and underscores the influence of demographic predictors. These findings may inform region-specific clinical guidelines and preventive approaches for managing impacted third molars.

Objectives: To address the following question: “Is the timing of implant placement and/or loading influencing the esthetic outcomes of implant‐supported single crowns?”Material and Methods: A literature screening was performed in four electronic databases until June 2020. Randomized controlled clinical trials with a minimum of 10 patients and 1 year of follow‐up and reporting on dimensional changes of the peri‐implant mucosa (midfacial recession, papilla level) and esthetic indexes were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used, and comparable trials were subjected to meta‐analyses.Results: Out of 8549 articles, 72 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included. Nine trials evaluated the timing of implant placement, and nine trials evaluated the timing of loading. The included trials comparing immediate implant placement to delayed implant placement evaluating the midfacial recession reported heterogeneous findings. No differences were found at 1 and 2‐years, when comparing midfacial recession and papilla level between immediate and early implant placement. In immediate and delayed implant placement, when comparing conventional and immediate loading, the midfacial mucosal margin change was not statistically significant at the 1‐year follow‐up. When evaluating the timing of implant placement and/or loading the included trials found no differences in the Pink Esthetic score, White Esthetic score, and Papilla Index between groups.Conclusions: Both immediate and early implant placement protocols presented stable treatment results in terms of esthetic outcomes at the 1‐, 2‐, and 10‐years follow‐up. Loading protocols did not seem to influence esthetic outcomes in short‐ and medium‐term follow‐ups.

Background: Bone regeneration procedures represent a major challenge in oral surgery. This study aimed to evaluate a composite PRF/particulate xenograft in guided bone regeneration. Methods: Edentulous patients with horizontal ridge deficiencies in the anterior maxilla and candidates to an immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitation were included. Horizontal linear measurements indicating bone gain were assessed from computer beam computer tomography (CBCT) scans obtained at pre-surgery, post-surgery, and the 12-month follow-up. Mean bone values were presented as mean ± 95% CI. Non-parametric tests were used as appropriate, and the effect size was calculated with Cohen’s d repeated measures. Results: Eighteen patients were rehabilitated with 72 implants. The mean horizontal bone width was 4.47 [4.13–4.80] mm pre-surgically, 9.25 [8.76–9.75] mm post-surgically, and 7.71 [7.28–8.14] mm 12 months after. Conclusions: PRF associated with a xenograft seems to promote an effective horizontal bone gain. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the benefits of this surgical approach.

Jo?o Manuel Mendez Caram?s, DDS, PhD, FICD/Ant?nio Duarte Sola Pereira da Mata, DDS, PhD, FICD/Duarte Nuno da Silva Marques, DDS, PhD/Helena Cristina de Oliveira Francisco, DDS, MS, PhD: Purpose: This was a retrospective cohort study designed to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic-veneered zirconia frameworks. Materials and Methods: Patients were recruited according to defined inclusion criteria. All patients were checked every 4 months from the time of definitive rehabilitation. At the end of 2013, all patients were rescheduled and rechecked for study purposes. The restorative procedures assessment was performed by previously established methods. The primary outcomes were the survival and success rates of the prosthesis. Descriptive statistics were used for the patient?s demographics, implant distribution, and occurrence of complications. To study the survival and success of the prostheses, a Cox Regression analysis was used with a model constructed in a forward conditional stepwise mode. Predictive variables were included in the model, and adjusted survival curves were obtained for each outcome. Results: From 2008 to 2013, 75 patients were rehabilitated with 92 implant-supported, screw-retained, full-arch ceramic-veneered zirconia framework rehabilitations. The range of follow-up was between 6 months and 5 years. From the 92 full implant-supported screw-retained full-arch rehabilitations, Cox regression analysis indicated that within a 5-year time frame, the probability of framework fracture, major chipping, minor chipping, or any of the former combined to occur was 17.6%, 46.5%, 69.2%, and 90.5%, respectively. Conclusion: Results suggest zirconia as a suitable material for framework structure in implant-supported, full-arch rehabilitations. However, it experiences a high incidence of technical complications, mainly due to ceramic chipping. Further clinical studies should aim to ascertain the effects of clinical features and manufacturing procedures on the survival rates of these prostheses.