Implant therapy is considered a predictable, safe, and reliable rehabilitation method for edentulous patients in most clinical scenarios. Thus, there is a growing trend in the indications for implants, which seems attributable not only to their clinical success but also to arguments such as a more “simplified approach” based on convenience or the belief that dental implants are as good as natural teeth. Therefore, the objective of this critical literature review of observational studies was to discuss the evidence concerning the long-term survival rates and treatment outcomes, comparing endodontically or periodontally treated teeth with dental implants. Altogether, the evidence suggests that the decision between keeping a tooth or replacing it with an implant should carefully consider the condition of the tooth (e.g., amount of remaining tooth and degree of attachment loss and mobility), systemic disorders, and patient preference. Although observational studies revealed high success rates and long-term survival of dental implants, failures and complications are common. For this reason, attempts should be made to first save maintainable teeth over the long-term, instead of immediately replacing teeth with dental implants.

Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) are prevalent musculoskeletal conditions involving pain and dysfunction of jaw mobility and function, which have proven difficult to treat satisfactorily. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a liquid platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) infusion during arthrocentesis versus other options using coadjuvant materials to reduce TMD symptoms. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs published before January 2024, comparing i-PRF to any other TMD treatment. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023495364). The searches generated several recent RCTs that compared i-PRF injection combined with arthrocentesis (AC) to AC-only or AC with platelet-rich plasma (PRP). The outcomes analyzed included measures of pain (visual analog scale, VAS), maximum mouth opening, joint sounds, and MRI-verified changes in joint structure. Across the RCTs, the addition of i-PRF injection to AC resulted in significant improvements in pain relief, joint function, mouth opening, and structural changes compared to AC-only or with PRP over follow-up periods ranging from 6 to 12 months. Current clinical evidence favors using i-PRF as an adjunct to AC rather than AC-only or AC with PRP for the treatment of TMDs. The improvements in subjective and objective outcome measures are clinically meaningful. Still, additional high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are required to strengthen the evidence base and better define the role of i-PRF in TMD management guidelines.

Experimental research is critical for advancing medical knowledge and enhancing patient outcomes, including in vitro and in vivo preclinical assessments. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a blood by-product that has garnered attention in the medical and dental fields due to its potential for tissue regeneration and wound healing. Animal models, such as rabbits and rats, have been used to produce PRF and examine its properties and applications. PRF has demonstrated potential in the dental and medical fields for reducing inflammation, promoting tissue repair, and accelerating wound healing. This narrative review aims to compare existing evidence and provide guidelines for PRF animal research, emphasizing the importance of standardizing animal models, following ethical considerations, and maintaining transparency and accountability. The authors highlight the necessity to use the correct relative centrifugal force (RCF), standardize centrifugal calibration, and report detailed information about blood collection and centrifuge parameters for reproducible results. Standardizing animal models and techniques is crucial for narrowing the gap between laboratory research and clinical applications, ultimately enhancing the translation of findings from bench to bedside.

In vitro cell-based tests are an important preclinical step for the safety assessment of biomaterials and drugs. Three-dimensional cell culture models (3D) may improve the limitations of the usual 2D models, as they better simulate a physiological environment. This work describes the characterization of a 3D spheroid model of MC3T3-E1 murine preosteoblasts for the testing of bone-substitute materials and investigates its adequacy to some of the most employed cell viability tests. The spheroids presented structural stability for 28 days in culture, with a regular spheroidal aspect, compact surface, and dense inner structure, with high potential for mineralization, but a time-dependent reduction in size. The use of colorimetric tests (MTT, XTT, and NRU) did not achieve satisfactory optical densities and did not correlate with cell density in the 3D model, as the aggregates remain strongly stained even after dye extraction steps. On the other hand, the LDH test achieved appropriate optical density and a high correlation with cell density (r2 = 0.77) and identified a dose–response for a well-known cytotoxic polymer (latex), while no toxicity was identified for biocompatible PLA wires. These results indicate that material testing with 3D bone cell models requires a careful choice of test methods and parameters.

The aim of the present study is to compare the biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) using two different forms—(1) granules and (2) paste—in human maxillary sinus bone reconstruction as a split-mouth study using histomorphometric and immunolabeling for osteocalcin. Ten patients with bilateral maxillary posterior partial edentulism were selected in order to reconstruct bone height. They were divided into two groups: BCPG and BCP-P. After six months of bone healing, biopsies were harvested to assess the new bone formation and immunostaining for osteocalcin. The BCP g group had the following results: mean of bone formation in pristine bone 49.4 ± 21.6%, intermediate 49.4 ± 16.2%, and apical 55.3 ± 21.4%. The group BCP-P had a mean of 41.9 ± 17.3% in the pristine bone region, 37.5 ± 7.8% for intermediate, and 39.0 ± 13.5% for apical. The osteocalcin immunolabeling was high for both groups, demonstrating bone calcification. Thus, the two biomaterials present suitable results for the placement of dental implants.

Background/Objectives: This double-blinded study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a giomer restorative material in comparison to a nanotechnology-based restorative system for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over a period of 48 months. Methods: A 48-month randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial was conducted with 49 subjects at its baseline, which was reduced to 34 subjects at follow-up, yielding a statistical power of 69.55%. Cervical lesions were restored using either BEAUTIFIL II LS (BL) or 3M/ESPE Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative (FS). Clinical assessments were performed by blinded examiners, excluding the one who placed the restorations. Evaluations were based on the Hickel criteria, covering esthetic, functional, and biological properties, with comparisons made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Hickel scores were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U test to compare BL and FS groups within subjects. Changes in median Hickel scores, sensitivity, and the gingival index were assessed via Friedman’s test, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. The p-values under 0.05 were considered significant, except with the Bonferroni correction. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between materials across most Hickel parameters (p > 0.05), though BL exhibited a trend of better surface staining (76.5% excellent with BL vs. 76.5% excellent with FS) and adjacent mucosa, while FS showed slight advantages in surface luster and color match. Conclusions: The clinical evaluation of restorations for non-carious cervical lesions using giomer and nanotechnology-based restorative systems revealed no statistically significant differences according to the Hickel criteria, indicating a similar clinical performance for both restorative materials.