To improve osteogenic differentiation and attachment of cells. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed from January 2004 to December 2013. Studies which performed smart modifications on conventional bone scaffold materials were included. Scaffolds with controlled release or encapsulation of bioactive molecules were not included. Experiments which did not investigate response of cells toward the scaffold (cell attachment, proliferation or osteoblastic differentiation) were excluded. Among 1458 studies, 38 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main scaffold varied extensively among the included studies. Smart modifications included addition of growth factors (group I-11 studies), extracellular matrix-like molecules (group II-13 studies) and nanoparticles (nano-HA) (group III-17 studies). In all groups, surface coating was the most commonly applied approach for smart modification of scaffolds. In group I, bone morphogenetic proteins were mainly used as growth factor stabilized on polycaprolactone (PCL). In group II, collagen 1 in combination with PCL, hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate were the most frequent scaffolds used. In the third group, nano-HA with PCL and chitosan were used the most. As variable methods were used, a thorough and comprehensible compare between the results and approaches was unattainable. Regarding the variability in methodology of these in vitro studies it was demonstrated that smart modification of scaffolds can improve tissue properties.

The application of mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) as drug delivery systems to deliver drugs, proteins, and genes has expanded considerably in recent years, using in vitro and animal studies. For future translation to clinical applications, the biological safety aspects of MSNs must be considered carefully. This paper reviews the biosafety of MSNs, examining key issues such as biocompatibility, effects on immune cells and erythrocytes, biodistribution, biodegradation and clearance, and how these vary depending on the effects of the physical and chemical properties of MSNs such as particle size, porosity, morphology, surface charge, and chemical modifications. The future use of MSNs as a delivery system must extend beyond what has been learnt thus far using rodent animal models to encompass larger animals.

Materials used for endodontics and with direct contact to tissues have a wide range of indications, from vital pulpal treatments to root filling materials and those used in endodontic surgery. In principle, interaction with dental materials may result in damage to tissues locally or systemically. Thus, a great variety of test methods are applied to evaluate a materials' potential risk of adverse biological effects to ensure their biocompatibility before commercialization. However, the results of biocompatibility evaluations are dependent on not only the tested materials but also the test methods due to the diversity of these effects and numerous variables involved. In addition, diverse biological effects require equally diverse assessments on a structured and planned approach. Such a structured assessment of the materials consists of four phases: general toxicity, local tissue irritation, pre‐clinical tests and clinical evaluations. Various types of screening assays are available; it is imperative to understand their advantages and limitations to recognize their appropriateness and for an accurate interpretation of their results. Recent scientific advances are rapidly introducing new materials to endodontics including nanomaterials, gene therapy and tissue engineering biomaterials. These new modalities open a new era to restore and regenerate dental tissues; however, all these new technologies can also present new hazards to patients. Before any clinical usage, new materials must be proven to be safe and not hazardous to health. Certain international standards exist for safety evaluation of dental materials (ISO 10993 series, ISO 7405 and ISO 14155‐1), but researchers often fail to follow these standards due to lack of access to standards, limitation of the guidelines and complexity of new experimental methods, which may cause technical errors. Moreover, many laboratories have developed their testing strategy for biocompatibility, which makes any comparison between findings more difficult. The purpose of this review was to discuss the concept of biocompatibility, structured test programmes and international standards for testing the biocompatibility of endodontic material biocompatibility. The text will further detail current test methods for evaluating the biocompatibility of endodontic materials, and their advantages and limitations.

Objective: This article presents a review of current data on the applications of photobiomodulation (PBM) in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), to guide future research. Background data: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been reported to be effective for various postoperative conditions, including pain relief, improvement of mastication, neurosensory recovery, and wound healing. There is a need for identifying the therapeutic irradiation windows for these conditions, based upon the available literature. Materials and methods: All original articles related to PBM for oral surgery in MEDLINE (NCBI PubMed and PMC), EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were reviewed until December 2018. Results: Forty-six clinical trials were included in this study. These trials were categorized into three different types of PBM applications. After reviewing all these studies, the most effective physical properties for PBM pain reduction after tooth extraction were as follows: wavelength 650–980 nm; power 4–300 mW; and energy density 3–85.7 J/cm². PBMT at 660–910 nm with 4–500 mW power and 2–480 J/cm² energy density was effective for decreasing facial swelling. At the same wavelength and power range with 4–106 J/cm² energy density, PBM was effective for alleviating trismus after tooth extraction. Conclusions: Most papers suggested that PBM seemed to be effective in reducing pain, swelling, and trismus after third molar tooth extraction, neurosensory and nerve recovery after mandibular ramus osteotomy. The heterogeneity of the standardization regarding the parameters of laser calls for caution in interpretation of these results. However, this evidence-based review regarding the best protocols for OMFS applications can be beneficial for both future research and clinical applications.