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.

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.

This scoping review mapped the clinical readiness of directly additively manufactured (AM) dental ceramics for single-unit definitive restorations (crowns, veneers, and partial-coverage restorations) using a predefined review-specific five-tier readiness framework (R1–R5) designed to organize evidence maturity from restoration-relevant foundational studies to comparative clinical evidence. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO (Dentistry and Oral Sciences Sources), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to February 2026, with citation tracking. Thirty-five sources were included: 31 in vitro studies and 4 clinical studies. Evidence clustered in preclinical tiers, with most studies classified as restoration-level in vitro investigations (R2, 22/35) or foundational specimen-level studies explicitly linked to restorative performance (R1, 9/35); only one feasibility study reached R3 (1/35), three studies provided comparative clinical evidence (R4, 3/35), and no R5-level evidence was identified. The additively manufactured definitive restorations evaluated were zirconia-based. Most restoration-level studies addressed zirconia crowns (18/35), with fewer studies focusing on veneers/laminates (5/35) and occlusal veneers/tabletops (2/35). Across AM routes (most commonly vat photopolymerization ceramic workflows and nanoparticle jetting) outcomes focused on fit/adaptation, manufacturing accuracy, mechanical performance, and aging simulations; clinical studies reported short- to mid-term performance using standardized evaluation criteria. Overall, the evidence suggests technical feasibility and increasing restoration-level evaluation under controlled conditions, but clinical applicability remains preliminary because higher-readiness clinical evidence is still limited. Future work should prioritize standardized reporting, clinically relevant aging/fatigue paradigms, and longer-term comparative clinical studies.

Background: Osteoinduction and bone regeneration are fundamental biological mechanisms enabling osseointegration and long-term durability of endosseous dental implants. In clinical practice, poor bone conditions, aesthetic demands, and peri-implant soft tissue problems commonly need the utilization of regenerative techniques targeted at optimizing both hard and soft tissue results. The purpose of this narrative review was to examine osteo-inductive and regenerative strategies currently employed in implant dentistry, with particular emphasis on the mechanobiological integration of hard–soft tissue regeneration and its implications for peri-implant tissue stability, osseointegration, and clinical predictability. Methods: A narrative literature review was done using PubMed and Scopus databases. Based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies published in English during the previous five years were reviewed. The core narrative analysis comprised a selection of physiologically relevant research that addressed osteo-inductive techniques, bone regeneration, osseointegration, and peri-implant soft tissue outcomes, as well as clinical studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and narrative reviews. A narrative synthesis was carried out because of methodological variability. Special emphasis was placed on evidence addressing the biological and clinical interaction between hard- and soft-tissue regenerative strategies, reflecting the specific conceptual focus of the review. Results: The evidence presented suggests that implant surface biofunctionalization, biologically active grafting materials, guided bone regeneration, and supplementary biological treatments may have a favorable impact on implant stability and peri-implant bone healing. Several investigations also underlined the biological dependency between peri-implant bone regeneration and soft tissue architecture, stressing the significance of soft tissue thickness, keratinized mucosa, and emergence profile stability. Even in inflammatory environments, bioactive titanium surface changes showed osteogenic potential, indicating a supporting function in early osseointegration. Conclusions: By promoting osseointegration and improving peri-implant tissue outcomes, osteo-inductive and regenerative techniques are essential to modern implant dentistry; however, their greatest potential may lie in integrated hard–soft tissue regenerative approaches aimed at improving long-term clinical predictability. To further understand the clinical efficacy of combination hard–soft tissue regeneration methods, future well-designed clinical trials with standardized outcome measures are needed. Future research should further clarify the mechanobiological principles underlying these integrated regenerative approaches.

Background/Objectives: Rehabilitation of the severely atrophic edentulous jaw remains one of the most demanding challenges in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction, particularly when extensive bone augmentation is contraindicated, has previously failed, or is refused by the patient. Subperiosteal implants, first introduced in the 1940s and largely abandoned due to poor long-term performance, have re-emerged over the past decade as a viable alternative through the integration of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based virtual planning, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and additive manufacturing. This review summarizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes, surgical workflow, and indications of customized, digitally designed subperiosteal implants. Materials and Methods: A structured literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus, supplemented by manual searching, to identify publications relevant to the predefined clinical and conceptual scope of this narrative review. Search terms addressed subperiosteal implants, digital/CAD-CAM workflows, additive manufacturing, severe jaw atrophy, and clinical outcomes. Predefined selection criteria were applied to maintain consistency with the scope of the review, and the literature-selection process was documented using a descriptive flow diagram. Results: Sixty-two publications were retained as the core literature informing the narrative synthesis, comprising systematic reviews and meta-analyses, retrospective and multicenter clinical studies, case series, case reports, and biomechanical/technical investigations. The synthesized evidence indicates short-to-medium-term implant survival generally exceeding 90%, with soft-tissue exposure and dehiscence as the most frequently reported complications, and a decline in survival on longer follow-up. Digitally designed subperiosteal implants are increasingly reported for severely resorbed maxillae and mandibles, oncologic and post-traumatic defects, syndromic patients, and cases of failed conventional or zygomatic implant therapy. Conclusions: Digital workflows have renewed clinical interest in subperiosteal implants by enabling patient-specific design and digitally supported planning and manufacturing. However, the evidence base remains dominated by case reports and heterogeneous retrospective series, underscoring the need for prospective, standardized, long-term studies.

The CAD-CAM technology was initiated in the early 1980s, and in the last decade it has developed significantly. Currently, the functionality and aesthetics offered by CAD-CAM systems meet the expectations of patients and thus, in this material, several extremely interesting aspects are presented, regarding the technological process of designing and manufacturing structures made by CAD-CAM technology both from zirconium oxide, but also from other specific modern materials.