Search

Dental radiography is widely used in dental practices and offers a valuable resource for the development of AI technology. Consequently, many researchers have been drawn to explore its application in different areas. The current systematic review was undertaken to critically appraise developments and performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models designed for tooth numbering and detection using dento-maxillofacial radiographic images. In order to maintain the integrity of their methodology, the authors of this systematic review followed the diagnostic test accuracy criteria outlined in PRISMA-DTA. Electronic search was done by navigating through various databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Saudi Digital Library for the articles published from 2018 to 2023. Sixteen articles that met the inclusion exclusion criteria were subjected to risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2 and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE approach.AI technology has been mainly applied for automated tooth detection and numbering, to detect teeth in CBCT images, to identify dental treatment patterns and approaches. The AI models utilised in the studies included exhibited a highest precision of 99.4% for tooth detection and 98% for tooth numbering. The use of AI as a supplementary diagnostic tool in the field of dental radiology holds great potential.

This study assessed the influence of chitosan nanoparticles on the fluoride-releasing ability of 4 glass ionomer cement (GIC) through an in vitro analysis.

Background: A recently FDA approved 3D printed drug is paving a path for new pharmaceutical manufacturing era. The 3D printing is a novel approach of producing 3D pharmaceuticals from digital designs, in a layer-by-layer fashion. However, traditional manufacturing of drug products is being carried out from decades with well-established manufacturing processes and with well approved regulatory guidelines but these processes are too obsolete in concern of process aptitude and manufacturing flexibility. On the other hand, 3D printing provides a competitive flexibility in terms of personalized drug dosage forms with complex geometries that will be made on-demand with desired drug release kinetics, hence providing the formulator a substantial provision of improvising the safety and efficacy of the drugs. Furthermore, this novel 3D technology allows tailoring of composite tissue scaffolds and sample models for characterization that closely mimic in-vivo simulations. Nevertheless, certain limitations are there in terms of regulatory aspects hindering the launch of 3DP products in the market. Methods: Exhaustive search were made on Google Scholar and PubMed databases concerning 3-D printing methods, drug delivery applications, and past to present evolution of personalized medicine. Results: Although a high magnitude of progress have been made on 3-D printing techniques in a short span of time, still inkjet, nozzle-based deposition, stereolithography and selective laser sintering techniques are the most popular ones. Their application is adapted in the fabrication of tablets, implants, polypills and nanoparticles. Conclusion: 3D printing is revolutionizing the pharma expectations towards customized medicines but still there is a need to explore the aspects of cost, flexibility and bioequivalence. The present review provides a comprehensive account of various 3D printing technologies and highlights the opportunities and key challenges of 3D printing relevant to pharmaceuticals.

Titanium hypersensitivity is rare, but it may exist among patients who need dental implant treatment. It could contribute to mild or severe peri-implant tissue hypersensitivity reactions and affect patients’ oral and general health according to some clinical reports. In extreme cases, it may lead to implant failure or extraction. In this case report, a 64-year-old Caucasian female patient received a titanium implant placement on #5. Right after the implant placement, she reported the symptoms of pain, eczema, and slight extraoral swelling, along with significant burning sensation occurring intra- and extraorally. The symptoms were not released after the systemic intervention of antibiotics for six days. On retrieving her medical history, the patient reported a previous allergic reaction to jewelry-like earrings in her childhood. The diagnosis of titanium hypersensitivity was made based on the rapid onset of symptoms and her metal allergy history. Therefore, the dental implant was removed after diagnosis, and a bone allograft was used to preserve the alveolar bone volume. Immediately after implant extraction, the swelling and burning sensation were receded. A complete recovery was achieved three weeks later. The dimension of the alveolar ridge bone was found well maintained in 10 weeks follow-up visit. Conclusion. Rapid onset of peri-implant gingival swelling may indicate a hypersensitivity to titanium implant in the clinic. For patients with a history of allergy to jewelry, the hypersensitivity tests to titanium alloy such as patch test or lymphocyte transformation test should be recommended as part of the dental implant treatment plan.