Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a major clinical problem that particularly affects patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for primary or metastatic bone malignancies and osteoporosis. The incidence of MRONJ varies by drug type and route of administration, with a higher incidence observed in patients receiving intravenous bisphosphonate therapy. This review examines the risk factors, management strategies and preventive measures for MRONJ, emphasizing the impact tooth extraction, implant treatment, oral surgery, periodontitis and poorly fitting removable dentures. Dental implants have been shown to have different risks for MRONJ, and some studies show that they do not significantly increase the risk of MRONJ and may even decrease it compared to other dental procedures. On the other hand, tooth extraction remains an important local risk factor for MRONJ and requires careful planning and execution to minimize trauma and subsequent complications. Effective prevention and treatment of MRONJ requires a multifaceted approach, including a thorough pretreatment dental evaluation, careful oral hygiene, and less traumatic dental procedures. Collaboration between dentists, physicians and patients is critical to optimize outcomes and minimize the risk of MRONJ. In addition, increasing knowledge and awareness of MRONJ among healthcare providers and patients is important for early detection and prevention. Future research should aim to further elucidate the pathophysiology of MRONJ and develop targeted treatment and complex prevention strategies. By advancing the understanding and treatment of MRONJ, dentists can provide safer and more effective treatment for patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy, ultimately improving their quality of life.

PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the marginal fit of indirect partial restorations, such as inlays, onlays, and endocrowns, fabricated using milling (subtractive manufacturing) and 3D printing (additive manufacturing) techniques.Materials and methodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and utilized the PICO framework to define the research question. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published in English between January 1, 2015, and April 1, 2025. The search targeted studies that directly compared milled and 3D-printed indirect partial restorations and reported marginal gap values in a numerical format. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and outcomes were synthesized using the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 16 studies, comprising 257 milled samples and 287 3D-printed samples, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled analysis found no statistically significant difference in marginal gap values between milled and 3D-printed partial restorations (p = 0.62). However, subgroup analyses revealed varying trends. For occlusal veneers, milled restorations showed a smaller marginal gap than 3D-printed restorations; however, this difference was not statistically significant (SMD = –1.86, 95% CI: –18.24 to –14.53, p = 0.39). Conversely, inlays and onlays showed a nonsignificant trend favoring 3D printing (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI: -0.26 to 2.00, p = 0.11).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis conclude that there is no overall statistically significant difference in marginal fit between milled and 3D-printed indirect partial restorations.