Dental implants have been utilized for many years to treat individuals with missing teeth. To optimize the long-term success rate of such implants, new designs, surfaces, and materials have been analyzed. It is important for the clinician to have a background in the field of implant surface design, to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of the available options, and to be aware of the alterations in surface structure that may occur following installation. This article provides a detailed review of the structure and the surface characteristics of dental implants, the modifications of implant surface, as well as the methods of evaluating implant surface structure. Moreover, it provides information concerning the structural changes that may take place at the time of dental implant placement. It is important for clinicians to be aware of such changes to plan and execute implant procedures with the highest possible success and implant survival rates.

Background: Accessory infraorbital foramen (AIOF) can change the normal course of emerging branches of the infraorbital nerve and blood vessels exiting the infraorbital foramen (IOF). This study aimed to examine the AIOF, number of foramina, and their position in relation to IOF using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: We performed a retrospective CBCT assessment of hospital records between January 2018 and August 2022. The CBCT of 507 patients were examined to extract information on the prevalence, number, position, linear distance from the IOF, and diameter of AIOF in relation to demographic factors. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence of AIOF. Mean and standard deviation were used to calculate the linear distance and diameter of the AIOF, respectively. The AIOFs, its distribution, and number were compared between sexes and sides using the chi-square test. The independent t-test and Mann–Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the mean difference between the sexes and sides. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: In this current study, the prevalence of AIOF was 7.1% (36 of the 507 patients). Additionally, the current study examined the number of foramina using a single foramen on each side and double foramina located bilaterally at a distance from the AIOF to the IOF. The mean AIOF diameter was also studied, and the AIOF position with respect to the IOF on CBCT was superomedial or inferomedial. There were no statistically significant associations between any of the parameters assessed in this study when comparing sex and sides. Conclusions A greater number of patients with AIOF presented with a single foramen and unilateral occurrence, without a statistically significant difference. The AIOF was most commonly located superomedial to the IOF.

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

Background: Impacted mandibular third molar removal is one of the most commonly performed oral surgical procedures. This procedure can lead to several postoperative complications, such as trismus, facial swelling, and pain, which occur as a result of the inflammatory responses to surgery. This study compared the efficiency of preoperative injections of 4 mg versus 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space to reduce postoperative sequelae. Methods: This was a randomized, prospective, split-mouth, controlled study, including 52 mandibular third molar surgeries in 26 patients. Each patient was randomized to either the 4 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone injection group. Dexamethasone was injected into the pterygomandibular space after numbness from local anesthesia.Data were collected for trismus, facial swelling, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the number of analgesics taken during the evaluation period. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Statistically significant differences in postoperative facial swelling (P = 0.031, diff = 1.4 mm) and pain (P = 0.012, diff = 0.020) were found between the 8 mg and 4 mg dexamethasone groups. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for trismus and the total number of analgesics consumed (P > 0.05). Conclusion Compared to the 4 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection, the 8 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space was more effective in reducing postoperative swelling and pain following the surgical removal of the impacted mandibular third molar. However, the difference in trismus could not be evaluated clinically. Therefore, the recommendation of administering the 4 mg dexamethasone preoperative injection is optimal in the third molar surgical procedure.

Oncological resection followed by reconstruction with a free fibular graft is still considered to be the gold standard treatment for functional and prosthetic rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. But this tedious traditional process is challenging for surgeons, as they have to deal with associated curve anatomy, surrounding innervations, and maintenance of functional and aesthetical acceptability. Such manual and operator’s skill dependent surgery can commonly demand a longer treatment duration; leading to an increased risk for prolonging the period of ischemia with increased morbidity, which frequently ends with an uncertain, unsatisfactory outcome. Technological advancements in the 20th and 21st centuries present a revolutionary improvement in the field of reconstructive surgery. Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and threedimensional (3D) bio-printing incorporating computer-aided design and computer-aided modeling is a promising tech in modern head and neck reconstruction. This recent innovation is more polished regarding initiation of patient-customized models, pre-bent plates, and osteotomy guides which further increase surgical precision, improve operative efficiency, ensure proper wound healing, shorten operative time, reduce operative cost, and decrease morbidities. This review focuses on the virtual surgical planning and 3D bio-printing technologies to evaluate their efficiency of qualitative and quantitative outcomes of resection and reconstruction of mandible in head-neck cancer using fibular graft.

Dexamethasone has been used in oral and maxillofacial surgery for postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar surgeries. It is a potent and powerful drug that can alleviate the aforementioned postoperative sequelae. Dexamethasone is responsible for inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators in the inflammation process to improve patient quality of life after surgical intervention. There are several available routes of administering dexamethasone. This article will help determine the suggested routes of administration, dosage, parameters, and dexamethasone timing for third molar surgeries.

Background: This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. Methods: The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients’ satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. Results: The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05).Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). Conclusion This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

Background: Mandibular third molar removal is the most common surgical procedure encountered in oral and maxillofacial clinics. It also presents the greatest challenges and controversies for surgeons when surgical removal is considered. Furthermore, diverse anesthesia results and success rates are achieved after using the same concentrations of different solutions or the same amounts of local anesthetics. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficiency of using double-cartridge (3.4 ml) 4% lidocaine (high concentration) and 4% articaine with a 1:100000 epinephrine infiltration in the retromolar region for impacted lower third molar surgery. Methods: This double-blind study included 30 patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars. The patients were randomly selected to receive 4% articaine on one side and 4% lidocaine on the other, as a local anesthetic for third molar surgery. The onset, duration of soft-tissue numbness, pulpal sensitivity, amount of additional local anesthetic needed, pain score during the surgical procedure, and duration of the operation were recorded. Results: The results of this research indicate that 86.7% of the operations in the 4% articaine group and 83.3% of those in the 4% lidocaine group were successful. Furthermore, the outcomes in both groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Numbness onset occurred faster in the articaine group than it did in the lidocaine group. However, the duration of soft-tissue anesthesia and pain scores recorded immediately postoperatively were similar. Conclusion It is concluded that 4% lidocaine and 4% articaine had a similar infiltration efficacy in the retromolar region and both local anesthetics are adequate for impacted lower third molar surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two local anesthetics regarding pain control and the duration of soft-tissue numbness during the procedure.

Background: Corticosteroids have been widely used by oral surgeons for reducing swelling caused by wisdom teeth surgery. However, they have not been proven to decrease pain. This study was aimed at analyzing previous studies pertaining to corticosteroids and pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery. Methods: The Science Direct, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant journals according to a systematic search strategy (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study). Randomized controlled trials published in English from 1998 to 2017 were extracted. Results: Twenty-seven articles were included, with a total of 36 comparative cases. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone were the most commonly used corticosteroids. Intramuscular injections of corticosteroids were optimal for pain reduction, regardless of the time of administration. Conclusions Corticosteroids can be used as an adjuvant for pain reduction following wisdom teeth surgery.Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone delivered via the intramuscular route is the best method for effective pain reduction. The ideal time for administration of corticosteroids is the preoperative period.

Background: Previous studies have investigated the effects of dexamethasone injections into the pterygomandibular space and compared them to those of controls; however, the effects of dexamethasone injections before and after lower third molar surgery on postoperative complications have not been studied. This research investigated the postoperative sequelae of dexamethasone injections before and after surgery into the pterygomandibular space. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative and postoperative injections of 4 mg of dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space on postoperative pain, facial swelling, and the restriction of mouth opening following lower third molar surgical removal. Methods: Twenty-seven participants with bilateral symmetrical lower impacted third molars were included in this study. Each participant was randomly allocated to one of two groups. Group A received injections of 1 ml dexamethasone (4 mg/mL) and 1 mL placebo into the pterygomandibular space before and after surgery, respectively. Group B received the same doses of placebo before surgery and dexamethasone after surgery. Results: A significant restriction of mouth opening on the second postoperative day was observed in both groups. Nonetheless, the postoperative restriction of mouth opening, facial swelling, postoperative pain, and analgesic consumption after lower third molar surgical removal were not significantly different in the two groups. Conclusions Regardless of the time of administration, dexamethasone injections into the pterygomandibular space resulted in satisfactory control of the postoperative sequelae of the mandibular third molar surgical removal.