At present, researchers in the field of biomaterials are focusing on the oral hard and soft tissue engineering with bioactive ingredients by activating body immune cells or different proteins of the body. By doing this natural ground substance, tissue component and long-lasting tissues grow. One of the current biomaterials is known as bioactive glass (BAG). The bioactive properties make BAG applicable to several clinical applications involving the regeneration of hard tissues in medicine and dentistry. In dentistry, its uses include dental restorative materials, mineralizing agents, as a coating material for dental implants, pulp capping, root canal treatment, and air-abrasion, and in medicine it has its applications from orthopedics to soft-tissue restoration. This review aims to provide an overview of promising and current uses of bioactive glasses in dentistry.

Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) is a new evolving polymeric material. The present article comprehensively reviewed an overview of various applications of PEKK in prosthodontics and oral implantology, highlighting its prospects for clinical applications. PEKK biomaterials is an elastic material with good shock absorbance and fracture resistance and present ultra-high performance among all thermoplastic composites for excellent mechanical strength, chemical resistance, and high thermal stability. Available articles on PEKK for dental applications were reviewed from January 1957 to August 2020) using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect resources. PEKK presents suitable physical, mechanical, and chemical properties for applications in prosthodontics and oral implantology. PEKK has good potential for a wide range of dental applications, including tooth restorations, crowns, bridge, endoposts, denture framework, implant-supported fixed prosthesis, and dental implants. PEKK dental implants have shown lesser stress shielding compared to titanium for dental implant applications. Further modifications and improving material properties can result in broader applications in the field of dentistry. Long term evaluations are needed as PEKK is recently applied in dentistry, and there are limited studies published on PEKK.

In a society highly conscious of esthetics, prosthetic rehabilitation of lost teeth with tissue‐integrated implants has gained wide acceptance and demand by patients and clinicians. The backbone of these tissue‐integrated implants is the biotechnical process of osseointegration. Although the concept has been introduced and discussed for ages, the deepening knowledge about its cellular and molecular mechanisms has led the researchers to borrow further into the factors influencing the process of osseointegration. This has aided in the hastening and improving the process of osseointegration by exploiting several, even the minutest, details and events taking place in this natural process. Recently, due to the high esthetic expectations of the patients, the implants are being loaded immediately, which demands a high degree of implant stability. Implant stability, especially secondary stability, largely depends on bone formation and integration of implants to the osseous tissues. Various factors that influence the rate and success of osseointegration can either be categorized as those related to implant characteristics like the physical and chemical macro‐ and microdesign of implants or the bone characteristics like the amount and quality of bone and the local and systemic host conditions, or the time or protocol followed for the functional loading of the dental implant. To address the shortcomings in osseointegration due to any of the factors, it is mandatory that continuous and reliable monitoring of the status of osseointegration is done. This review attempts to encompass the mechanisms, factors affecting, and methods to assess osseointegration, followed by a discussion on the recent advances and future perspectives in dental implantology to enhance the process of osseointegration. The review was aimed at igniting the inquisitive minds to usher further the development of technology that enhances osseointegration.

Despite the success rates of dental implants, peri-implantitis presents as the most common complication in implant dentistry. This review discusses various factors associated with peri-implantitis and various available treatments, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Relevant articles on peri-implantitis published in English were reviewed from August 2010 to April 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. The identified risk indicators of peri-implant diseases are plaque, smoking, history of periodontitis, surface roughness, residual cement, emergence angle >30 degrees, radiation therapy, keratinized tissue width, and function time of the implant, sex, and diabetes. Peri-implantitis treatments can be divided into nonsurgical (mechanical, antiseptic, and antibiotics), surface decontamination (chemical and laser), and surgical (air powder abrasive, resective, and regenerative). However, mechanical debridement alone may fail to eliminate the causative bacteria, and this treatment should be combined with other treatments (antiseptics and surgical treatment). Surface decontamination using chemical agents may be used as an adjuvant treatment; however, the definitive clinical benefit is yet not proven. Laser treatment may result in a short-term decrease in periodontal pocket depth, while air powder abrasive is effective in cleaning a previously contaminated implant surface. Surgical elimination of a pocket, bone recontouring and plaque control are also effective for treating peri-implantitis. The current evidence indicates that regenerative approaches to treat peri-implant defects are unpredictable.

The use of polymeric materials (PMs) and polymeric films (PMFs) has increased in medicine and dentistry. This increasing interest is attributed to not only the excellent surfaces of PMs and PMFs but also their desired mechanical and biological properties, low production cost, and ease in processing, allowing them to be tailored for a wide range of applications. Specifically, PMs and PMFs are used in dentistry for their antimicrobial, drug delivery properties; in preventive, restorative and regenerative therapies; and for corrosion and friction reduction. PMFs such as acrylic acid copolymers are used as a dental adhesive; polylactic acids are used for dental pulp and dentin regeneration, and bioactive polymers are used as advanced drug delivery systems. The objective of this article was to review the literatures on the latest advancements in the use of PMs and PMFs in medicine and dentistry. Published literature (1990-2017) on PMs and PMFs for use in medicine and dentistry was reviewed using MEDLINE/PubMed and ScienceDirect resources. Furthermore, this review also explores the diversity of latest PMs and PMFs that have been utilized in dental applications, and analyzes the benefits and limitations of PMs and PMFs. Most of the PMs and PMFs have shown to improve the biomechanical properties of dental materials, but in future, more clinical studies are needed to create better treatment guidelines for patients.

There have been various developments in intraoral 3D scanning technology. This study is aimed at investigating the accuracy of 10 scanners developed from 2015 to 2020. A maxillary dental model with reference points was printed from Form 2 (FormLabs, Somerville, MA, USA). The model was scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner (IOS); Trios 3 (normal and high‐resolution mode); Trios 4 (normal and high‐resolution mode) (3Shape Trios A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark); iTero Element, iTero 2, and iTero 5D Element (Align Technologies, San Jose, California, USA); Dental Wings (Dental Wings, Montreal QC, Canada); Panda 2 (Pengtum Technologies, Shanghai, China); Medit i500 (Medit Corp. Seoul, South Korea); Planmeca Emerald™ (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland); and Aoralscan (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China). After the scan, the 3D scanned stereolithography files were created. The various distances were measured five times in X, Y, Z, and XY axes of various scans and with a vernier caliper (control) and from the Rhinoceros software. The data were analyzed using SPSS 18. Test for the normality of the various measurement data were done using Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test. The trueness and precision of the measurements were compared among the various scans using the Kruskal‐Wallis test. The significance was considered at P < 0.05. The trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by comparing the measurements from the control. Precision was tested through the measurements of repeated scans. It showed that more the distance is less the accuracy for all scanners. In all studied scanners, the trueness varied but precision was favorably similar. Diagonal scanning showed less accuracy for all the scanners. Hence, when scanning the full arch, the dentist needs to take more caution and good scan pattern. Trios series showed the best scan results compared to other scanners.