Alexandros Tournavitis, DDS, MSc/Dimitrios Tortopidis, DDS, PhD/Konstantinos Fountoulakis, MD, PhD/George Menexes, BMath, MA, PhD/Petros Koidis, DDS, MS, PhD: Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether psychopathologic profile is related to the location of pain in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients with myofascial and/or temporomandibular joint pain. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 painful TMD patients (39 women and 36 men) participated in the study. Participants were divided into three groups (myogenous, arthrogenous, and mixed) using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) Axis I guidelines for assessment of TMD signs and symptoms. Three psychometric instruments were used to assess the psychopathologic profile of the TMD subgroups. Patients? state and trait anxiety were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S, STAI-T), depression was measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and psychosocial functioning was evaluated using the Global Disability Scale (Glo.Di.S). The three TMD groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney tests relative to the psychometric scores. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 15.0 software. Results: No significant differences were detected among the different TMD groups in the three psychometric scales; STAI-T, CES-D, Glo.Di.S (P > .05). When the psychometric scale of state anxiety (STAI-S) was considered, significant differences were revealed between the myogenous and the arthrogenous pain groups (P = .008) and also between the mixed and the arthrogenous groups (P < .001). Conclusion: These findings suggest that the psychopathologic profile is not related to the location of pain in TMD patients. However, anxiety was found to be higher in TMD patients with myogenous pain alone or combined with arthrogenous pain compared to those with only arthrogenous pain.

Background/Objectives: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between digital and conventional impression techniques for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases up to June 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Human clinical studies reporting PROMs between digital and conventional impression techniques for iFDPs were included. Studies using structured, but not necessarily validated, questionnaires were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to pool comparable outcomes across studies using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 1784 records screened, eighteen studies were included. Most studies showed that digital impressions were associated with higher patient satisfaction, compared to conventional impressions. Ten studies contributed data to at least one outcome; pooled analyses included the following: overall satisfaction (k = 5), comfort (k = 7), gagging/nausea (k = 5), esthetic satisfaction (k = 2), unpleasant taste (k = 5), anxiety (k = 5), discomfort (k = 2), pain (k = 5), and overall discomfort (k = 5). Digital impressions were significantly favored (p < 0.05) for anxiety (MD = 13.3, 95% CI: −22 to −4.5), nausea (MD = −26.4, 95% CI −46.8 to −6.0), bad taste (MD = −34.8, 95% CI −58.3 to −11.3), discomfort (SMD = −2.24, 95% CI −3.51 to −0.98), comfort (SMD = 1.77, 95% CI: 0.60 to 2.94), perceived procedure time (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62), and overall satisfaction (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.09). No statistically significant differences were found for pain or esthetic evaluation. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed among the included studies. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates that digital impression workflows enhance the overall patient experience for implant-supported fixed restorations, especially in domains linked to comfort and procedural efficiency. These findings support PROM-informed personalization of impression workflows: screening for gagging, anxiety, or intolerance to impression materials could guide patient-tailored use of intraoral scanning while acknowledging no consistent advantage for pain or esthetic perception.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of conservative different therapeutic modalities for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) pain.An electronic systematic search was c...

Hydrophilicity of dental impression materials is crucial for obtaining an accurate impression and necessary for the production of a well-fitting cast restoration. The most common technique for evaluation of hydrophilicity is a contact angle measurement. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare the water contact angles of four groups of elastomeric impression materials, before and during setting. Flattened specimens (n=10) of tested impression materials were prepared by the use of a Teflon mold with specific dimensions. A 5μl droplet of deionized water fell on the specimen, and photos were taken using a Nikon D3200 DSLR camera and a 105 mm macro lens (Nikorr, Nikon) in specific time points. The CAD/CAM material showed the highest contact angle measurements. The light body polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) material 1, polyether and vinylsiloxanether material showed comparable contact angle measurements especially at the initial time point. A statistically significant reduction of contact angles was reported during setup time for all PVS, PE and vinylsiloxanether materials, while the most expressed reduction of contact angle measurements, and thus the most significant increase of hydrophilicity were reported for light wash PVS material 2. The CAD/CAM impression material showed the most hydrophobic behavior. PVS materials showed excellent hydrophilicity. Polyether and polyvinyloxanether impression materials presented lower contact angle measurements, and thus superior hydrophilicity, compared with other tested materials initially and during setting. All tested impression materials presented a stepwise development of hydrophilicity during the setting stage.

Background: Regenerative medicine in dentistry involves tissue engineering applications suitable for the unique oral environment. In this regard, advances in computer-aided technology have facilitated the creation of 3D scaffolds using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). This review aimed to investigate whether 3D-printed scaffolds can be effectively used to achieve ridge preservation and/or predictable vertical and horizontal bone augmentation, ensuring successful outcomes for dental implant placement. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Ovid) to identify relevant studies according to specific eligibility criteria, following the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized clinical trials. Results: The initial search yielded 419 articles, which were subsequently screened to remove duplicates. After evaluating 293 articles based on title and abstract, 10 studies remained for full-text assessment. Ultimately, only three studies met all the pre-established eligibility criteria. Conclusions: The studies included in this systematic review showed that the use of multidimensional customized scaffolds appears to promote dental implant placement. Nevertheless, despite the positive reported effects, further well-designed randomized clinical trials are necessary to determine the special characteristics of the optimal 3D-customized scaffold.