Promotion of oral health has an essential role in the maintenance of teeth in adults. However, health education must start from an early age, in order to monitor the child's growth and prevent pathologies. Schools are in charge of the overall education of children and of guidance to parents but could also be engaged in the promotion of oral health, supported and counseled by pediatricians and dentists. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate whether school age children could be taught, successfully, basic oral sciences and dental hygiene, by a professional, during school hours. In this pilot study, an anonymized test was administered to 45 children of age between 8 and 10, both before and after an interactive lecture on oral health, to assess the effectiveness of the lesson and acquisition by the children of knowledge on oral health. After the presentation, the majority of the children were able to answer correctly to the questionnaire that was given to them (test, retest) which was related to dental anatomy and pathology (number of teeth, cavities, halitosis), and dental hygiene tools and practices (brushes, floss, mouth wash, tongue scrapers). The children seemed to be receptive to learning while in school, and a specific educational session of dental hygiene and oral health seems to be the right approach to ensure children can identify dental hygiene tools and use them appropriately.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are a condition which has multifactorial etiology. The most acknowledged method to classify TMDs is the diagnostic criteria (DC) introduced firstly by Dworkin. This protocol considers different aspects that are not only biological, but even psychosocial. Diagnosis is often based on anamnesis, physical examination and instrumental diagnosis. TMDs are classified as intra-articular and/or extra-articular disorders. Common signs and symptoms include jaw pain and dysfunction, earache, headache, facial pain, limitation to opening the mouth, ear pain and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) noises. This study regards two kind of clinicians that started in the last years to be more involved in the treatment of TMDs: osteopaths (OOs) and physiotherapists (PTs). The purpose is to analyze their attitude and clinical approach on patients affected by TMDs. Four hundred therapists answered an anonymous questionnaire regarding TMJ and TMDs. OOs showed greater knowledges on TMDs and TMJ and, the therapists with both qualifications seemed to be most confident in treating patients with TMDs. In conclusion this study highlights OOs and all the clinicians with this qualification, have a higher confidence in treating patients with TMD than the others. Dentists and orthodontists, according to this study, should co-work with OOs and PTs, because they are the specialists more requested by them than other kinds of specialists.

Background/Objectives: The Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors occurs with a variable prevalence in different ethnic groups, and there is a need for a temporary replacement until maturity has been reached in patients for whom the replacement solution has been chosen. This study aims to analyze the scientific evidence available to date concerning the use of mini-screw implant (MSI)-supported pontics for the transitional management of permanent maxillary lateral incisors’ agenesis in developmental age subjects. Methods: Electronic research was conducted using four databases: PubMed, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and the Wiley/Cochrane Library. Six studies were included in the final review. Data were extracted based on the first and second author, year of publication, study design, sample characteristics, mini-screw implant (MSI) characteristics, MSI insertion and loading protocol, characteristics of the prosthetic component, and outcomes during the follow-up time. Results: Clinical outcomes were proven positive in all studies. In only one study did MSIs show mobility and consequent failure after one month. Discoloration of the prosthetic part proved to be the main complication. Conclusions: The comparison with conventional removable prostheses and fixed dental prostheses revealed that MSI-supported pontics are a viable alternative and a promising temporary solution until the end of growth. Further studies to standardize protocols and assess long-term outcomes are needed.

Background and Objectives: The impact of orthodontic appliances on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) has gained increasing attention, particularly in relation to patient-centered outcomes. Clear aligners (CAs) are often perceived as more comfortable than fixed appliances (FAs), although evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of CAs and FAs on OHRQoL in patients with Angle class I malocclusion and to further evaluate the reliability of the findings using trial sequential analysis (TSA). Materials and Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251051003). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials comparing CAs and FAs and reporting OHRQoL outcomes (OHIP-14) were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on early changes in OHRQoL. TSA was applied to control for type I and II errors and to evaluate the sufficiency of the cumulative evidence. Results: Two randomized controlled trials (n = 74) were included in the quantitative synthesis. Both treatments were associated with a transient deterioration in OHRQoL after appliance placement. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant improvements favoring CAs in psychological discomfort (p = 0.007) and psychological disability (p < 0.001), while no significant differences were observed for other domains or for overall OHRQoL. Exploratory TSA suggested an early signal in favor of psychological outcomes, with the cumulative Z-curve crossing the monitoring boundary; however, given the very small number of included trials, these findings should be regarded as preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. In contrast, for most other outcomes, the required information size was not reached and results remained inconclusive. For handicap, TSA suggested that a clinically relevant difference is unlikely. Conclusions: Clear aligners may provide a modest short-term advantage over fixed appliances in psychological aspects of OHRQoL, while no consistent differences are observed in physical or overall domains, based on very limited evidence. TSA suggests a preliminary signal in psychological outcomes but highlights insufficient evidence for most other domains. These results should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality randomized trials are needed.

Background/Objectives: Transverse maxillary deficiency in growing patients can be treated using rapid maxillary expansion (RME) or slow maxillary expansion (SME) with spring-based appliances, such as the Leaf Expander (LE), but their comparative dentoskeletal effects remain debated. This study evaluated the transverse dentoskeletal outcomes of LE-based SME versus conventional RME. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to 9 January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LE-based SME and RME in skeletally immature patients were included. Primary outcomes were transverse maxillary change; secondary outcomes included dentoalveolar side effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean differences and a random-effects model. Results: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Both SME and RME achieved significant transverse expansion. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between protocols for inter-canine distance, inter-second deciduous molar distance, inter-first permanent molar distance, or basal maxillary width. Intergroup differences varied by anatomical site and measurement method: RME showed greater anterior dental and skeletal transverse gains, whereas SME achieved comparable intermolar expansion with greater molar distorotation. Three-dimensional analyses indicated similar morphological enlargement. Risk of bias ranged from low to high; the certainty of evidence was low to very low for most transverse parameters and moderate only for molar distorotation. Conclusions: Both LE-based SME and RME effectively correct transverse maxillary deficiency. Quantitative synthesis showed comparable overall transverse expansion, with differences mainly related to the distribution and biomechanical pattern of dentoskeletal effects rather than the absolute amount of expansion achieved. Appliance selection should be guided by biomechanical features and individual treatment objectives. Further high-quality RCTs with standardized three-dimensional protocols and longer follow-up are needed.