Diana Heimes

Objective: Pain management is a significant challenge in dental care, making analgesics the most commonly prescribed drugs by dentists. Since many analgesics are available over the counter, data on their use in dental practice is imprecise. This study aimed to gather information on the prescription and recommendation patterns for systemic analgesics among dental practitioners. Materials and methods: A total of 1,746 dentists were contacted via email and letter and invited to participate in an online survey. The survey covered four sections: personal data, acute and chronic pain management, preemptive analgesia, and managing at-risk patients. Results: 232 dentists participated in the survey. Ibuprofen, typically at 600 mg, was the most commonly recommended analgesic for both acute and chronic pain. For acute pain, analgesics were prescribed for 1–3 days on average. Two-thirds of respondents did not use preemptive analgesia, and of those who did, 96.56% recommended ibuprofen. Notably, in 22.16% of cases, contraindicated analgesics were recommended for patients with renal, liver, or cardiovascular conditions. Conclusions: The analgesics recommended by dentists are limited in variety and often do not align with specific clinical indications. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, especially ibuprofen, are commonly used long-term, despite conflicting recommendations. A significant number of dentists prescribed contraindicated medications to at-risk patients. Only one-third utilized preemptive analgesia, underscoring the need for improved education and greater use of this approach in dental practice. Clinical relevance: There is a clear need for enhanced training on analgesic use and preemptive analgesia to improve patient safety, particularly for those with risk factors. Graphical

Background: Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) > 3 mm is associated with increased surgical complexity and higher complication rates. Despite the availability of various ARA techniques and graft materials, robust comparative clinical data remain limited. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate and compare surgical and patient-relevant outcomes across seven established vertical ARA techniques. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 70 cases of vertical ARA > 3 mm using seven different techniques (10 cases each): an iliac crest graft (ICG), intraoral autogenous bone block (IBB), allogeneic bone block (ABB), CAD/CAM ABB, CAD/CAM titanium mesh (CAD/CAM TM), magnesium scaffold (MS), and the allogeneic shell technique (ST). The outcome parameters included harvesting and insertion time, bone gain (vertical and horizontal, after a minimum of one year), graft resorption (after one year), donor site morbidity, dehiscence rate, need for material removal, and biological and general financial costs. Results: Harvesting time significantly varied among the different ARA techniques (p = 0.0025), with the longest mean durations in ICGs (51.6 ± 5.8 min) and IBBs (36.5 ± 10.8 min), and no harvesting was required for the other techniques. Insertion times also significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were longest in IBBs (50.1 ± 7.5 min) and the ST (47.3 ± 13.9 min). ICGs achieved the highest vertical and horizontal bone gain (5.6 ± 0.4 mm), while ABBs and CAD/CAM ABBs showed the lowest (~3.0 mm). Resorption rates significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were highest for ICGs (25.9 ± 3.9%) and lowest for MSs (5.1 ± 1.5%). Donor site morbidity was 100% in ICGs and 50% in IBBs, with no morbidity in the other groups. Dehiscence rates were 10% in most techniques but 30% in CAD/CAM TMs. Removals were required in all techniques except MSs. Biological and financial costs were high for ICGs and CAD/CAM ABBs and low for MSs. Conclusions: Vertical ARA techniques significantly differ regarding harvesting and insertion time, bone gain, graft resorption, donor site morbidity, dehiscence rates, removals, and costs. While ICGs achieved the highest bone volume, less invasive techniques, such as CAD/CAM-based or resorbable scaffolds, reduced biological costs and complication risks. Technique selection should be individualized based on defects, patients, and reconstructive goals.

Purpose: Silk fibroin (SF) is a biomaterial derived from the cocoon of the mulberry silkworm. This study aimed to assess the capacity of SF matrices biologized with injectable platelet-rich fibrin (iPRF) or enamel matrix protein (EMP) to modulate angiogenesis and immune response in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay. Methods: 300 eggs were divided into the following groups: CM + NaCl, CM + iPRF, CM + EMP, SF + NaCl, SF + iPRF, and SF + EMP. Matrices were applied to the CAM on embryonic development day (EDD) 7 after rehydration. Angiogenesis, represented by vascularized area, vessel density, and vessel junctions, was evaluated on EDD 10, 12, and 14. Additionally, gene expression of HIF-1ɑ, VEGF, MMP-13, and NOS2 was assessed via quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) on EDD 11 and 14. Results: The number of vascularized specimens was notably higher in SF matrices regardless of the treatment applied, while in the CM group, only matrices biofunctionalized with iPRF demonstrated vascularization. On EDD 14, the CM + iPRF group exhibited the highest values for total vascularized area (CM + iPRF: 57.52%, SF + iPRF: 21.87%, p < 0.001), vessel density (CM + iPRF: 0.0067 μm/µm², SF + iPRF: 0.0032 μm/µm², p = 0.002), number of vessel junctions (CM + iPRF: 14.45, SF + iPRF: 4.82, p = 0.001). Gene expressions displayed high data variability and no significant differences between the groups. Conclusions: Biofunctionalization with iPRF in CM leads to a high vascularization rate probably through their capability of retaining higher liquid volumes, suggesting improved intraoral wound healing after guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Despite biofunctionalization, SF matrices exhibit a high vascularization, indicating SF as a promising material for GTR.

Background/Objectives: Buffered local anesthetics are suggested to enhance patient comfort and anesthetic efficacy during dental procedures. However, their advantages over non-buffered solutions in maxillary third molar extractions remain under-investigated. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study aimed to compare the efficacy of buffered versus non-buffered 4% articaine in terms of pain, anesthetic onset, and the duration of anesthesia during maxillary third molar extractions. Methods: Each participant randomly received two buccal infiltrations on two single appointments to extract maxillary third molars: one with 4% articaine buffered with sodium bicarbonate and the other with non-buffered 4% articaine. Pain during injection, post-extraction pain, onset time, and the duration of anesthesia were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0–10). Results: Fifty adult participants (23 males and 27 females) with a mean age of 21.6 years were included in the study. Buffered 4% articaine significantly reduced injection pain (mean VAS: 3.12 ± 1.36 vs. 4.2 ± 0.3, p = 0.0001) and post-extraction pain (mean VAS: 4.4 ± 1.75 vs. 5.76 ± 1.78, p = 0.0002) compared to non-buffered articaine. Additionally, buffered articaine demonstrated a faster onset of anesthesia (mean time (seconds): 85.92 ± 27.37 vs. 126.86 ± 33.15, p < 0.0001) and a longer duration of anesthesia (mean duration (minutes): 70.4 ± 13.64 vs. 51.4 ± 7.2, p < 0.0001). Regarding gender’s factor, the comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in pain perception between males and females for either injection pain or post-extraction pain. Conclusions: Buffered 4% articaine provides superior anesthetic efficacy compared to non-buffered 4% articaine, enhancing patient comfort by reducing pain, accelerating onset, and prolonging the duration of anesthesia during maxillary third molar extractions.

This case report introduces an innovative approach for tissue regeneration post-total excision of basal cell carcinoma utilizing a xenogeneic collagen matrix coupled with injectable platelet-rich fibrin. The clinical outcome underscores the efficacy and predictability of this protocol in soft tissue regeneration. While further investigation on a larger patient cohort is warranted to fully elucidate its effects and advantages, this technique holds promise in streamlining surgical procedures following excision of extraoral neoplasms. Notably, its simple handling, minimal resource requirements, and potential to mitigate donor site morbidity and patient comorbidities post-surgery signify its value in clinical practice.