Background: Bone grafting has been considered the gold standard for hard tissue reconstructive surgery and is widely used for large mandibular defect reconstruction. However, the midface encompasses delicate structures that are surrounded by a complex bone architecture, which makes bone grafting using traditional methods very challenging. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a developing technology that is derived from the evolution of additive manufacturing. It enables precise development of a scaffold from different available biomaterials that mimic the shape, size, and dimension of a defect without relying only on the surgeon’s skills and capabilities, and subsequently, may enhance surgical outcomes and, in turn, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Review: This review summarizes different biomaterial classes that can be used in 3D bioprinters as bioinks to fabricate bone scaffolds, including polymers, bioceramics, and composites. It also describes the advantages and limitations of the three currently used 3D bioprinting technologies: inkjet bioprinting, micro-extrusion, and laser-assisted bioprinting. Conclusions: Although 3D bioprinting technology is still in its infancy and requires further development and optimization both in biomaterials and techniques, it offers great promise and potential for facial reconstruction with improved outcome.

Background: Techniques to accelerate tooth movement have been a topic of interest in orthodontics over the past decade. As orthodontic treatment time is linked to potential detrimental effects, such as increased decalcification, dental caries, root resorption, and gingival inflammation, the possibility of reducing treatment time in orthodontics may provide multiple benefits to the patient. Another reason for the surge in interest in accelerated tooth movement has been the increased interest in adult orthodontics. Review: This review summarizes the different methods for surgical acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement. It also describes the advantages and limitations of these techniques, including guidance for future investigations. Conclusions: Optimization of the described techniques is still required, but some of the techniques appear to offer the potential for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement and improving outcomes in well-selected cases.

The purpose of this investigation was to undertake an objective and quantitative evaluation of how mandibular prominence influences perceived attractiveness. The mandibular prominence of an idealized profile image was altered in 2 mm increments from −16 to 12 mm, in order to represent retrusion and protrusion of the mandible, respectively. These images were rated on a 7-point Likert scale by a preselected group of pre-treatment orthognathic patients, clinicians, and laypeople. A duplicate image was used to assess intra-examiner reliability.