Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass a group of conditions characterized by anatomical, histological, and/or functional abnormalities that affect the muscular and/or articular components of the temporomandibular joint. Prolotherapy is an injectable treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal pain that involves dextrose solution administration in the joint. Aims: To summarize, the aims involve considering the existing quality of clinical evidence on the efficacy of prolotherapy versus placebo and other active comparators, such as autologous blood products or botulinum toxin, in improving the outcomes of TMDs. Methods: A literature search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed, following the PRISMA statement guidelines, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with TMDs receiving prolotherapy. The maximal incisor opening (MIO), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, and frequency of dislocations were analyzed as the outcomes. The weighted mean difference was used to pool outcomes. The risk of bias was recorded for the included studies. Results: Six studies comparing prolotherapy to placebo were identified. Prolotherapy is uniformly more efficient in reducing the VAS for pain when compared to the placebo (mean difference = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.56–1.84, p < 0.001). Perceived jaw mobility was improved among prolotherapy patients, (mean difference = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.05–0.90, p = 0.003) when compared to the placebo. A beneficial effect for prolotherapy with regard to MIO (mean difference = 0.84, 95%CI: −2.12–3.80, p = 0.58) was not confirmed. Prolotherapy appears to be more efficient than autologous blood products in reducing VAS for pain (mean difference = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.11–0.87, p = 0.01). Prolotherapy was found to be more effective in reducing pain, MIO, and clicking when compared to an occlusal splint in a single study. Conclusions: Prolotherapy is also a promising modality for TMDs, despite the limited number of randomized clinical trials. Existing evidence supports its use to reduce TMD-related pain, even against other modalities. Further research is needed to better describe the benefit of prolotherapy for other outcomes.

According to the European Union (EU) Directive 2005/36, the medical specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) exists with two possible formats: dual degree OMFS called Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DOMFS) - basic medical and basic dental training and single medical degree Maxillofacial Surgery (MFS). Within the EU and across all of Europe, differences in the nature and quality of OMFS training coexist. By implementing the highest possible standards of training, patient care can be improved. To establish quality metrics for an ideal OMFS training programme, the European OMFS Trainee Forum of the Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes (UEMS) conducted a Delphi consensus protocol from November 2023 to January 2024. Facilitated by the OMFS Section of UEMS, 57 trainees from 32 countries participated. The process involved the definition of three quality levels using the red, amber, and green (RAG) rating system. Following the Delphi process, 46 domains were identified, including features within training programmes/rotations, teaching and education programmes, training placements, recording of training progression and activity, and external assessment of training programmes. The results were aligned with the UEMS OMFS European Training Requirement (ETR). With the introduction of a RAG rating, trainees and trainers can review their training programmes with the aim of improving them by moving domains from Red to Green. Raising the standard of training will benefit our patients. This initiative could mark a significant step towards the harmonisation of OMFS training, improving quality and ensuring consistent, high-level care throughout Europe.

Background/Objectives: Accurate surgical margin delineation is essential in the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), particularly basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), to reduce recurrence and metastasis. Dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy for skin tumors, but its utility for preoperative margin assessment remains underexplored. To compare dermoscopy-guided versus clinical visual inspection for preoperative margin assessment in NMSC excision, focusing on histological clearance rates and surgical outcomes. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 1 July 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients undergoing surgical excision of histologically confirmed BCC or cSCC, with preoperative margin evaluation using either dermoscopy or clinical examination. The primary outcome was the rate of complete histological excision. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis using the Freeman–Tukey transformation was performed. Results: Nine cohort studies comprising 900 NMSC lesions were included. Dermoscopy-guided excision demonstrated pooled histological clearance of 98.7% (95% CI: 97–99.8%), compared to 80–94% with clinical assessment. Moderate heterogeneity was observed (I² = 42%). However, variability in study design and limited data for cSCC restricted broader conclusions. Conclusions: Dermoscopy may enhance margin assessment and histological clearance in NMSC surgery, especially for BCC. Further standardized, high-quality studies are needed to confirm its role in surgical planning and extend evidence to SCC.