Background: Human saliva as a bodily fluid—similar to blood—is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva. Design: This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Results: Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate. Conclusion: It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

Background: Regenerative dentistry is the operation of restoring dental, oral and maxillofacial tissues. Currently, there are no guidelines for the ideal cement/material in regenerative endodontic treatments (RET). Hydraulic calcium silicate-based cements (hCSCs) are currently the material of choice for RET. Objectives: This systematic review was conducted to gather all of the different direct and indirect approaches of using hCSCs in RET in vitro and in vivo, and to ascertain if there are any superiorities to indirect approaches. Methods and Materials: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. The study question according to the PICO format was as follows: Comparison of the biological behavior (O) of stem cells (P) exposed to hCSCs through direct and indirect methods (I) with untreated stem cells (C). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Results: A total of 78 studies were included. Studies were published between 2010 and 2022. Twenty-eight commercially available and eighteen modified hCSCs were used. Seven exposure methods (four direct and three indirect contacts) were assessed. ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were the most used hCSCs and had the most desirable results. hCSCs were either freshly mixed or set before application. Most studies allowed hCSCs to set in incubation for 24 h before application, which resulted in the most desirable biological outcomes. Freshly mixed hCSCs had the worst outcomes. Indirect methods had significantly better viability/proliferation and odonto-/osteogenesis outcomes. Conclusion: Biodentine and ProRoot MTA used in indirect exposure methods result in desirable biological outcomes.

The occurrence of desquamation, shedding and erythema on marginal and attached gingiva is described as desquamative gingivitis (DG). Various autoimmune/dermatological disorders cause DG.The aim of the present systematic review was to gather information on all possible kinds of treatment for DG, based on specific DG diagnoses.The review was organized following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. An electronic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, up to April 2022. Reviews, letters and studies with less than 2 participants were excluded.Fifteen publications matched the eligibility criteria: 6 case series; 5 clinical trials; 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and 1 cohort study. A total of 330 patients were enrolled, mostly women (81.52%), with an average age of 57.6 years. Diagnostic characteristics corresponded to oral lichen planus (OLP) (n = 249), mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) (n = 30), pemphigus vulgaris (PV) (n = 19), plasma cell gingivitis (PCG) (n = 4), erythema multiforme (EM) (n = 1), and non-specified diseases (NSD) (n = 27). Oral lichen planus and MMP were eliminated using oral hygiene instructions with topical clobetasol and/or doxycycline monohydrate. Pemphigus vulgaris, PCG and EM were treated with topical clobetasol.To conclude, each DG case requires personalized treatment, depending on the diagnosis.

Introduction: Tooth loss is a significant health issue. Currently, this situation is often treated with the use of synthetic materials such as implants and prostheses. However, these treatment modalities do not fully meet patients' biological and mechanical needs and have limited longevity. Regenerative medicine focuses on the restoration of patients' natural tissues via tissue engineering techniques instead of rehabilitating with artificial appliances. Therefore, a tissue-engineered tooth regeneration strategy seems like a promising option to treat tooth loss. Objective: This review aims to demonstrate recent advances in tooth regeneration strategies and discoveries about underlying mechanisms and pathways of tooth formation Results and Discussion: Whole tooth regeneration, tooth root formation, and dentin-pulp organoid generation have been achieved by using different seed cells and various materials for scaffold production. Bioactive agents are critical elements for the induction of cells into odontoblast or ameloblast lineage. Some substantial pathways enrolled in tooth development have been figured out, helping researchers design their experiments more effectively and aligned with the natural process of tooth formation. Conclusion: According to current knowledge, tooth regeneration is possible in case of proper selection of stem cells, appropriate design and manufacturing of a biocompatible scaffold, and meticulous application of bioactive agents for odontogenic induction. Understanding innate odontogenesis pathways play a crucial role in accurately planning regenerative therapeutic interventions in order to reproduce teeth.

Background: Vertical ridge augmentations (VRAs), including guided bone regeneration (GBR) techniques, have been utilized in the reconstruction of deficient alveolar ridges for quite some time. GBR-based VRA procedures are technique-sensitive, operator-dependent, and often lead to complications detected during or after the treatment. The main objective of this systematic review was to include randomized and non-randomized human studies that investigated the regenerative outcome differences, as well as the incidence rates of healing and surgical complications of titanium meshes and/or titanium-reinforced membranes with and without collagen membranes utilized in GBR-based VRA. Methods: This systematic review has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and is registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420251002615). Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies up to 5 June 2025. Randomized and non-randomized human clinical studies, except for case reports, focused on applying titanium meshes or titanium-reinforced membranes with or without collagen membranes in GBR-based VRA, were eligible. Results: A total of 119 patients from three human randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and one case series reported across nine articles were included. The addition of collagen membranes causes no significant differences in vertical bone gain or surgical/healing complication rates. Conclusions: The addition of collagen membranes on top of titanium meshes and titanium-reinforced membranes might not be necessary in GBR-based VRA. Further human RCTs are required to reach a reliable conclusion.

Background. Pain is the most prevalent complication after dentoalveolar surgery. Failure in effective pain control could potentially lead to systemic sequels, such as tachycardia, hypertension, improper nutrition, and central sensitization. Pregabalin is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analog with inhibitory and analgesic effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Prescribing gabapentinoids as complementary analgesics reduces the consumption of opioid and non-opioid analgesics, and consequently their side effects. Objectives. The main purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effects of pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) vs. ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) on patients' pain levels after impacted third mandibular molar surgery. Material and methods. In this randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 19-34 years volunteered for 2 consecutive (1 month apart) third mandibular molar surgeries (the contra-lateral teeth). The patients were randomly placed into 2 groups: group G1 (n = 12) was prescribed pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) after the 1st surgery and ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg) after the 2nd surgery; and group G2 (n = 12) was prescribed the exact opposite of the G1 arrangement. During the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients recorded the number of complementary analgesics they took (single-dose 400 mg ibuprofen) and their level of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) every 2 h. Results. The average level of pain at 2 h post-surgery (T1) was significantly lower when pregabalin was prescribed (p < 0.05). Most patients needed complementary analgesics at 4 h post-surgery (T2). How-ever, during the first 24 h post-surgery, the patients required significantly more complementary analgesics when ibuprofen was prescribed. Conclusions. In comparison with oral ibuprofen (single-dose 400 mg), oral pregabalin (single-dose 75 mg) had a stronger analgesic effect at 2 h after impacted third mandibular molar surgery (p < 0.05). Pregabalin resulted in a significantly lower consumption of complementary analgesics in the first 24 h post-surgery as compared to ibuprofen.