Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost, production time, clinical performance, and patient satisfaction of 3D printing workflows in prosthodontics compared to conventional and subtractive methods. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify studies published between 2015 and 2025 that directly compared digital additive workflows with analogue or subtractive workflows. Studies were eligible if they included prosthodontic treatments such as dentures, crowns, or implant-supported prostheses and reported at least one relevant outcome. The primary outcomes were cost, time efficiency, clinical accuracy (e.g., marginal adaptation, fit), and patient satisfaction. Included studies were methodologically evaluated using MINORS scale and the risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 3D printing workflows demonstrated reduced production time and cost in comparison to conventional or subtractive methods. Clinical outcomes were generally comparable or superior, particularly regarding adaptation and fit. Patient satisfaction was favourable in most studies, although reporting varied. Long-term follow-up was limited, which constrains the interpretation of sustained clinical performance. Conclusions: These findings suggest that 3D printing can serve as an efficient and cost-effective alternative in prosthodontic fabrication, with clinical results comparable to those already established. Further research is needed to assess long-term clinical performance and cost-effectiveness in various clinical scenarios.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of moisture control strategies (including wet-bonding techniques, universal adhesives, and etching type) on dentin bonding performance in restorative dentistry. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, following PRISMA guidelines. Only in vitro and ex vivo studies comparing wet- and dry-bonding protocols, using human dentin substrates, and reporting microtensile bond strength (μTBS) were included. The data were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis and the methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS tool. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, eight of which were included in this meta-analysis. The moisture control strategies significantly influenced the bonding outcomes, with ethanol and acetone wet bonding yielding higher μTBS and enhanced hybrid layer morphology. The universal adhesives performed effectively under both moist and dry conditions, although their performance varied by the adhesive composition and solvent system. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant advantage for hydrated dentin (SMD = +1.20; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.86; p < 0.001), with the moist and ethanol-treated substrates outperforming the dry and over-wet surfaces. The long-term durability was better preserved with ethanol and acetone pretreatments and the adjunctive use of chlorhexidine. Conclusions: Moisture conditions influence dentin bond strength, but modern universal adhesives show consistent bonding performance across different moisture conditions. Solvent-wet-bonding protocols, particularly with ethanol or acetone, enhance the immediate and long-term performance. While the current evidence is limited by the in vitro designs and heterogeneity, the findings demonstrate protocol flexibility and highlight strategies to optimize adhesion in clinical practice. Future clinical trials are necessary to validate these approaches under real-world conditions.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate cell proliferation capacity and micronuclei incidence in the presence of nickel–chromium (Ni-Cr)-based dental alloys, with and without the addition of beryllium (Be). The use of these alloys in dental prosthetics is widespread; however, the potential risks associated with their genotoxicity and cytotoxicity require further investigation. The study seeks to provide insight into the safety of these materials and their long-term impact on the health of both patients and dental professionals. Methods: The study was conducted through a comparative analysis of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity using human lymphocyte cultures exposed to two types of Ni-Cr-based dental alloys, one containing beryllium and the other without beryllium. The evaluations were performed according to the OECD Test No. 487 guideline, employing the micronucleus assay and cell proliferation assay. Lymphocytes were exposed to three different alloy concentrations (5 mg/mL, 10 mg/mL, and 20 mg/mL), and the effects on genetic material were analyzed microscopically. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and variance) were calculated, and one-way ANOVA was used to assess statistical significance between groups, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Results: A significant increase in cytotoxicity and micronuclei incidence was observed in the samples containing beryllium compared to those without beryllium. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.001) between the test and control groups and between different concentrations. Additionally, a direct proportional relationship was noted between alloy concentration and the intensity of genotoxic effects. Microscopic analysis confirmed genetic material damage, indicating a potentially increased risk associated with the use of this type of dental material. Conclusions: The data obtained suggest that Ni-Cr-based dental alloys containing beryllium may present a significant risk of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity. Therefore, the selection of materials used in dental prosthetics should be based on solid scientific evidence, and the use of these alloys should be approached with caution. The study highlights the need for further research to better understand the long-term impact of these materials on human health.

Dental professionals face numerous occupational health risks that can significantly impact their well-being and career longevity. This scoping review

Background: Whether nanoengineered titanium surfaces confer superior implant stability beyond modern microrough controls remains uncertain. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidance: comprehensive multi-database searching with de-duplication; dual independent screening, full-text assessment, and standardized data extraction for predefined outcomes (implant stability quotient [ISQ], mechanical anchorage by removal/push-out/pull-out torque, and histologic bone-to-implant contact). Risk of bias was appraised with RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized clinical studies, and CAMARADES (animal experimentation). The certainty of clinical evidence was summarized using GRADE. Results: Across animal models, nanoengineered surfaces consistently improved early osseointegration indices (higher removal torque and bone-to-implant contact at initial healing). In clinical comparative studies, nanoengineered implants showed modest, time-limited gains in early stability (ISQ) versus microrough titanium. By 3–6 months, between-group differences typically diminished, and no consistent advantages were demonstrated for survival or marginal bone outcomes at later follow-up. Methodologic heterogeneity (surface chemistries, timepoints, outcome definitions) and small clinical samples limited quantitative synthesis. Overall, risk-of-bias concerns ranged from some concerns to high in non-randomized studies; the certainty of clinical evidence was low. Conclusions: Nanofeatured titanium surfaces improve early osseointegration but do not demonstrate a consistent long-term advantage over modern microrough implants. Current evidence supports an early osseointegration benefit without clear long-term clinical advantage over contemporary microrough implants. Adequately powered, head-to-head trials with standardized stability endpoints and ≥12-month follow-up are needed to determine whether early gains translate into patient-important outcomes.

Objectives: To compare artificial intelligence (AI) crown design with expert or non-AI computer-aided (CAD) design for single-unit tooth and implant-supported crowns across efficiency, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched from 2016 to 2025 with citation chasing. Eligible studies directly contrasted artificial intelligence-generated or artificial intelligence-assisted crown designs with human design in clinical, ex vivo, or in silico settings. Primary outcomes were design time, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for non-randomized clinical studies, QUIN for bench studies, and PROBAST + AI for computational investigations, with TRIPOD + AI items mapped descriptively. Given heterogeneity in settings and endpoints, a narrative synthesis was used. Results: A total of 14 studies met inclusion criteria, including a clinical patient study, multiple ex vivo experiments, and in silico evaluations. Artificial intelligence design reduced design time by between 40% and 90% relative to expert computer-aided design or manual workflows. Marginal and internal fit for artificial intelligence and human designs were statistically equivalent in multiple comparisons. Mechanical performance matched technician designs in load-to-fracture testing, and modeling indicated stress distributions similar to natural teeth. Overall risk of bias was judged as some concerns across tiers. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence crown design delivers efficiency gains while showing short-term technical comparability across fit, morphology, occlusion, and strength for single-unit crowns in predominantly bench and in silico evidence, with limited patient-level feasibility data. Prospective clinical trials with standardized, preregistered endpoints are needed to confirm durability, generalizability, and patient-relevant outcomes, and to establish whether short-term technical advantages translate into clinical benefit.