Purpose: Although various prophylactic and/or postoperative systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimize failure after dental implant placement and postoperative infection, the role of antibiotics in implant dentistry is still controversial. The purposes of this questionnaire study were to determine the current antibiotic prescribing habits of clinicians in conjunction with dental implant placement and to understand whether any consensus has been reached among implant surgery performing clinicians. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent by electronic mail to all members of the Turkish Dental Society. The questions were related to whether antibiotics were routinely prescribed either pre- or/and postoperatively during routine dental implant placement. The respondents were also asked to specify their workplace and education. The results were analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive and chi-square analyses were used to compare categorical data; Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the quantitative data by category. Results: A total of 429 members responded to the questionnaire. The clinicians having more experience had a greater tendency to prescribe preoperative antibiotics (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the postoperative antibiotic prescription choice of the clinician according to the clinicians’ experience (p > 0.05). A total of 175 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe preoperative antibiotics when there was systemic comorbidity; 99 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe antibiotics before every implant surgery. The aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics by the clinicians. A total of 38.58% of the respondents (n = 130) who were prescribing preoperative antibiotics, 2000 mg aminopenicillin was given 1 h before the surgical procedure. Dentists and solo private practitioners were prescribing more preoperative antibiotics (p < 0,05). Conclusions: There was no consensus among clinicians regarding the use of antibiotics in association with routine dental implant placement. Aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics for both pre- and postoperatively. Furthermore, most of the antibiotic regimens being used are not in accordance with the current published data.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy on neurosensory recovery of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and lingual nerve (LN) injuries. Background: PBM has favorable stimulating and therapeutic effects in the living tissues, and promotes neuron maturation and regeneration in injured nerves. Methods: Fifty patients with the neurosensory deficit of IAN and/or LN, developed as a consequence of dental or oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures enrolled in this study. Paresthesia of the patients was confirmed by subjective and objective neurosensory tests. Subjective evaluation was done by rating the patient's numbness by visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (normal) to 10 (most severely affected). Objective neurosensory assessment was done by two-point discrimination, thermal stimuli, light touch, and pinprick tests. All patients were treated with PBM (830 nm, 70 mW) three times a week for 10–16 sessions. Subjective and objective evaluations were done before and after treatment. Statistical analysis was performed by single sample Kolmogrov–Smirnov test for normality and the Levene test for homogeneity and the data examined by two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) ( α = 0.05). Results: This study included 50 patients, between 18 and 67 years of age, with a mean of 38 years (standard deviation = 15.1). The causes of the neurosensory deficiencies were removal of impacted third molar (54%) and other dental procedures (46%). There was a significant decrease on VAS scores in neurosensory deficit ( p = 0.0) and the objective test total scores were significantly higher after the treatment ( p = 0.0). Conclusions: It might be concluded that PBM treatment can provide subjective and objective improvements in long or/and short-term neurosensory deficits and can be used as a noninvasive treatment method.

Achieving reliable implant stability in type IV (D4) bone remains a clinical challenge due to its thin cortical plates and low trabecular density, which increase the risk of early failure. Novel osteotomy techniques such as osseodensification and the OsseoShaper have been proposed, yet their effects when combined with different implant macrogeometries are not fully understood. This in vitro study evaluated forty osteotomies in standardized polyurethane foam blocks simulating D4 bone density. Three site preparation protocols—conventional osteotomy, osseodensification, and OsseoShaper—were combined with two implant macrogeometries (parallel-walled conical and tri-oval tapered designs). Insertion torque (IT) was measured using a calibrated digital torque meter, and implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis (ISQ). Intraoperative thermal changes were monitored with infrared thermography under constant irrigation. Statistically significant differences were observed among groups (p < 0.05). Osseodensification with parallel-walled implants achieved the highest stability, whereas osseodensification with tri-oval implants showed the lowest. Although osseodensification produced the greatest thermal increase, all values remained below the 47 °C osteonecrosis threshold. Within the study’s limitations, both the osteotomy technique and implant macrogeometry significantly affected stability and thermal outcomes, with osseodensification plus parallel-walled implants providing the most predictable performance in D4 bone.