Background and Objectives: This study aimed to identify the occupational and personal factors influencing burnout syndrome (BS) and depression among dentists in academic faculties, oral and dental health centres (ODHCs), and private clinics. Materials and Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional study was carried out on dentists working in different regions of Turkey. Data were gathered through an online questionnaire hosted on Google Forms. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data and Maslach BS Inventory (MBI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) sections. The demographic data collected included age, height, weight, marital status, blood type, gender, monthly income, income satisfaction, and whether the participant had enough free time. The dentists were divided into three groups, namely, faculty setting, private clinic, and ODHC, according to the institutions at which they worked. Results: The study was composed of 290 dentists, including 172 males and 118 females, with an average age of 36.98 ± 5.56 years. In total, 128 of the dentists worked in faculties, 72 worked in private clinics, and 90 worked in ODHCs. The study found that women exhibited higher EE scores than men (p < 0.05). The comparison of BS and depression scores showed no statistically significant differences between groups based on marital status or blood type (p > 0.05). There was no significant relationship between emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalisation (DP), personal accomplishment (PA), and depression scores according to age, BMI, and work experience (p < 0.05). It was found that the EE scores of the dentists working in faculties and private clinics were lower than those of the dentists working in ODHCs (p < 0.05). Monthly income was associated with depression (r = −0.35). Conclusions: The findings reveal that dentists employed in ODHCs reported greater levels of EE. These results suggest a pressing need for enhancements in the work environments of dentists, especially in ODHCs.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of naproxen sodium + codeine phosphate and dexketoprofen trometamol + paracetamol combinations in the treatment of acute dental pain during the preoperative period. Patients with complaints of acute pericoronitis caused by a semi-erupted lower impacted third molar were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, naproxen sodium + codeine phosphate (550/30 mg) in group A and dexketoprofen trometamol + paracetamol (25/300 mg) in group B, and pain was assessed by VAS. The collected data were statistically analysed and interpreted using SPSS. The Friedman test (a non-parametric test) was used to analyse data within groups. The independent groups t-test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used to analyse data between groups. Of the 62 patients included in the study, 51 (82.3%) were female and 11 (17.7%) were male, with a mean age of 22.94 years. As a result of the 7-day evaluation, the VAS average in group A decreased from 7.61 to 1.26, representing an 83.44% decrease, while in group B, it decreased from 7.19 to 0.61, representing an 91.52% decrease. When the VAS averages of groups A and B were compared over time, statistically significant differences were only found between the values on day 7 (p < 0.05). Both analgesics were effective in acute dental pain. The results of this study support the use of dexketoprofen trometamol + paracetamol and naproxen sodium + codeine phosphate combinations in the treatment of acute dental pain during preoperative period. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was retrospectively registered on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ on 21 March 2025 under the title ‘Evaluation of the Analgesic Efficacy of the Combination of Dexketoprofen + Paracetamol and the Combination of Naproxen Sodium + Codeine in Patients With Acute Dental Pain’ and number NCT06916234.

The long-term success of dental implants is significantly influenced by primary stability, which is commonly assessed through insertion torque (IT) and removal torque (RT) measurements in vitro. While polyurethane (PU) blocks are accepted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as the standard bone analog material for biomechanical testing, the use of polyethylene (PE) as a bone model material for dental implant research remains limited and not well established. This operator-blinded, in vitro study compared the IT and RT values of dental implants placed in PE and PU blocks of identical density (60 pounds per cubic foot [pcf]; 0.96 g/cm³). A total of 60 tapered dental implants (4.2 × 12 mm, RBM surface, platform switching) were placed into PE (n = 30) and PU (n = 30) blocks by a calibrated operator blinded to the material type. Implant sockets were prepared by an independent surgeon following the manufacturer’s drilling protocol. IT and RT values were recorded using a physiodispenser with torque measurement capability (5–80 N·cm). Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test (α = 0.05), with Mann–Whitney U tests reported as a sensitivity analysis for non-normally distributed variables. No statistically significant difference was observed in IT between PE and PU groups (58.50 ± 8.42 vs. 58.17 ± 9.60 N·cm; p = 0.887; Cohen’s d = 0.04; 95% CI of mean difference: −4.33 to 5.00 N·cm). However, RT was significantly higher in the PU group compared to the PE group (71.17 ± 7.15 vs. 64.33 ± 9.17 N·cm; p = 0.002; Cohen’s d = 0.83; 95% CI: −11.08 to −2.58 N·cm; Mann–Whitney U sensitivity analysis p = 0.004). Under the specific high-density (60 pcf) conditions tested, the absence of a statistically significant IT difference does not constitute formal evidence of equivalence or non-inferiority, and the significantly higher RT in PU indicates that PE and PU are not interchangeable bone analogs. Further studies across a range of densities, implant macrogeometries, and using formal equivalence testing are required before PE can be considered for in vitro dental implant stability research.

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of using L-PRF in patients undergoing impacted lower third molar surgery with either primary or secondary closure techniques. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted on patients with bilateral impacted lower third molars of a similar position. Primary closure was performed in group 1 and secondary closure in group 2. The group 1 closure technique was applied to one side of the patients, and the group 2 closure technique was applied to the other side at different times. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 9 patients were excluded from the study because of alveolitis and failure to attend regular control visits out. Results: Of the 36 patients included in the study, 23 were female and 13 were male, with a mean age of 22.42 ± 3.36 years. The secondary closure group had lower VAS scores at hour 6 (p < 0.05). Pain decreased more in the primary closure group when comparing changes between the VAS scores at 6 hours and 7 days (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study, showing that both secondary and primary closure are effective, with similar outcomes in terms of pain, swelling, and trismus, should be supported by future clinical trials.

Aims: The aims of the study were to evaluate the relationship between pain experienced and dental anxiety in patients presenting to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery with tootache and TMD pain. Methods: This retrospective, observational study was conducted on patients who applied to the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic between January and June 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the reason for visiting the clinic. Patients in group 1 had toothache and patients in group 2 had temporomandibular disorder pain. Pain was assessed by VAS and dental anxiety by MDAS. The statistical significance level was accepted as p

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of using L-PRF in patients undergoing impacted lower third molar surgery with either primary or secondary closure techniques. Methods: This prospective, randomised, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted in patients with bilateral lower impacted third molars of similar position. Primary closure was performed in group 1 and secondary closure in group 2. Group 1 closure technique was applied to one side of the patients and group 2 closure technique was applied to the other side at different times. Nine pa-tients were excluded from the study due to alveolitis and failure to attend regular control visits out of the 45 patients evaluated. Results: Of the 36 patients included in the study, 23 were female and 13 were male and the mean age was 22.42±3.36 years. The secondary closure group had lower VAS scores at hour 6 (p