Aim: To assess the reliability of ultrasonographic, cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT), probe transparency and transgingival probing (TGP) methods in evaluating gingival thickness (GT), compared with the gold standard histological assessment. Methods: Sixteen fresh cadaver heads with intact gingivae were used. The sequence for GT measurement included CBCT, ultrasonography, probe transparency, TGP and histology. Both stainless steel periodontal probe and colour‐coded probes were used for transparency. TGP involved a calibrated endodontic spreader, and histologic samples served as a comparative standard. Primary outcomes evaluated accuracy in GT measurement, while secondary outcomes assessed agreement among methods and established an optimal threshold for thin versus thick gingiva. Results: One hundred and fifteen teeth were examined, yielding a mean GT of 1.34 mm histologically. US and CBCT underestimated GT (means of 1.25 mm and 1.13 mm, respectively), while TGP overestimated (1.51 mm). Correlations ( r = 0.88–0.98) and ICC values (0.73–0.95) indicated strong inter‐method agreement. Regression models significantly estimated histological GT from US, CBCT and TGP. A new 1.18 mm cut‐off, based on histology, improved diagnostic accuracy over the traditional 1 mm threshold. Conclusions: While histology remains the GT reference standard, US, CBCT and TGP achieved clinically acceptable accuracy. US showed the highest agreement with histology, followed by TGP and CBCT. The study supports US as the most practical non‐invasive tool, although CBCT and TGP remain viable options. Further clinical validation is recommended, acknowledging the limitations of cadaveric models in reflecting in vivo conditions.

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of static, dynamic, and robotic computer‐assisted protocols in immediate implant placement (IIP), compared to freehand (FH) techniques. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted for studies published through March 2025. Clinical studies on Computer‐Aided Implant Surgery (CAIS), reporting angular and/or linear deviations between the planned and actual implant position after IIP were included. Eligible designs comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non‐randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), prospective/retrospective cohort studies (Retro), and prospective/retrospective case series (PCS/RCS). A network meta‐analysis was performed to assess deviations in implant angulation, platform, and apex positions among FH, half‐guided static (HG‐sCAIS), fully‐guided static (FG‐sCAIS), dynamic (dCAIS), and robotic (rCAIS) protocols. Covariates such as jaw, site position, study design, and risk of bias were included. Two post hoc sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results: Eighteen studies encompassing 780 immediately placed implants were analyzed (6 RCTs; 2 PCS; 7 RCS; 3 Retro). Compared with FH, every guided protocol significantly enhanced accuracy. Mean angular deviation decreased by 3.36° with rCAIS, 2.66° with dCAIS, 1.73° with HG‐sCAIS, and 1.85° with FG‐sCAIS ( p < 0.05 ). Corresponding reductions in platform deviation were 0.68, 0.71, 0.27, and 0.54 mm, while apex deviation decreased by 1.43, 1.32, 1.23, and 0.81 mm, respectively ( p < 0.05 ). rCAIS and dCAIS ranked highest across all metrics. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, guided surgery significantly improves the accuracy of immediate implant placement. rCAIS and dCAIS demonstrated the most favorable accuracy profiles, although sensitivity analyses restricted to higher‐quality evidence suggest that differences among guided protocols may be less pronounced.

Objectives: This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of peri‐implant mucositis, covering its etiology, risk factors, clinical features, diagnosis, and available treatment modalities. Methods: A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed on electronic databases. Studies with focus on peri‐implant mucositis were included and reviewed comprehensively. Based on the latest evidence, decisional workflows and clinical recommendations were proposed. Results: The review highlights the multifactorial etiology of peri‐implant mucositis, primarily driven by bacterial biofilm accumulation. Key risk factors identified include poor oral hygiene, smoking, uncontrolled diabetes, and local factors such as implant surface characteristics and prosthesis design. Diagnostic criteria are based on the presence of clinical signs (inflammation, redness, swelling, and bleeding on probing (BoP)) and the absence of radiographic bone changes. Nonsurgical treatments, including mechanical debridement and photodynamic therapy (PDT), have shown effectiveness in managing the condition. However, the efficacy of adjunctive therapies remains inconclusive. Regular maintenance and optimal oral hygiene are critical in preventing and managing peri‐implant mucositis. Conclusion: Peri‐implant mucositis remains a prevalent condition in implant dentistry, with nonsurgical treatment strategies showing promising outcomes in disease management. Further research is needed to establish the long‐term effectiveness of adjunctive therapies and optimize preventive strategies for maintaining peri‐implant health.

Introduction: Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter‐century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research.Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry.Results: Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in “Dentistry (miscellaneous)” and “Oral Surgery” journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. “Implant system/design/characteristics,” “Bone Augmentation,” and “Implant Prosthesis” were the top most investigated topics.Conclusions: The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high‐level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country‐ and author‐collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

Background and Objectives: Bone regeneration (BR) is a cornerstone technique in reconstructive dental surgery, traditionally using either barrier membranes, titanium meshes, or perforated non-resorbable membranes to facilitate bone regeneration. Recent advancements in 3D technology, including CAD/CAM and additive manufacturing, have enabled the development of customized scaffolds tailored to patient needs, potentially overcoming the limitations of conventional methods. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2025 to identify studies on digital technologies applied to bone augmentation. Eligible studies encompassed randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, and case reports, all published in English. Data regarding digital workflows, software, materials, printing techniques, and sterilization methods were extracted from 23 studies published between 2015 and 2024. Results: The review highlights a diverse range of digital workflows, beginning with CBCT-based DICOM to STL conversion using software such as Mimics and Btk-3D^®. Customized titanium meshes and other meshes like Poly Ether-Ether Ketone (PEEK) meshes were produced via techniques including direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and five-axis milling. Although titanium remained the predominant material, studies reported variations in mesh design, thickness, and sterilization protocols. The findings underscore that digital customization enhances surgical precision and efficiency in BR, with several studies demonstrating improved bone gain and reduced operative time compared to conventional approaches. Conclusions: This scoping review confirms that 3D techniques represent a promising advancement in BR. Customized digital workflows provide superior accuracy and support for BR procedures, yet variability in protocols and limited high-quality trials underscore the need for further clinical research to standardize techniques and validate long-term outcomes.