Bone infections are a frequent cause for large bony defects with a reduced healing capacity. In previous findings, we could already show diminished healing capacity after bone infections, despite the absence of the causing agent, Staphylococcus aureus. Moreover, these bony defects showed reduced osteoblastogenesis and increased osteoclastogenesis, meaning elevated bone resorption ongoing with an elevated B‐cell activity. To overcome the negative effects of this postinfectious inflammatory state, we tried to use the regenerative capacity of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose tissue (adipose‐derived stem cells [ASCs]) to improve bone regeneration and moreover were curious about immunomodulation of applicated stem cells in this setting. Therefore, we used our established murine animal model and applicated ASCs locally after sufficient debridement of infected bones. Bone regeneration and resorption as well as immunological markers were investigated via histology, immunohistochemistry, Western blot, and fluorescence‐activated cell scanning (FACS) analysis and μ‐computed tomography (CT) analysis. Interestingly, ASCs were able to restore bone healing via elevation of osteoblastogenesis and downregulation of osteoclasts. Surprisingly, stem cells showed an impact on the innate immune system, downregulating B‐cell population. In summary, these data provide a fascinating new and innovative approach, supporting bone healing after bacterial infections and moreover gain insights into the complex ceremony of stem cell interaction in terms of bone infection and regeneration. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2019;8:1084–1091

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of hardness from 3D printed transfer trays and dental crowding on bracket bonding accuracy. Lower models (no crowding group: Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) < 3, crowding group: LII > 7, n = 10 per group) were selected at random, digitized, 3D printed, and utilized for semiautomated virtual positioning of brackets and tubes. Hard and soft transfer trays were fabricated with polyjet printing and digital light processing, respectively. Brackets and tubes were transferred to the 3D printed models and altogether digitized using intraoral scanning (IOS) and microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) for assessment of linear and angular deviations. Mean intra- and interrater reliability amounted to 0.67 ± 0.34/0.79 ± 0.16 for IOS, and 0.92 ± 0.05/0.92 ± 0.5 for the micro-CT measurements. Minor linear discrepancies were observed (median: 0.11 mm, Q1–Q3: −0.06–0.28 mm). Deviations in torque (median: 2.49°, Q1–Q3: 1.27–4.03°) were greater than angular ones (median: 1.81°, Q1–Q3: 1.05°–2.90°), higher for hard (median: 2.49°, Q1–Q3: 1.32–3.91°) compared to soft (median: 1.77°, Q1–Q3: 0.94–3.01°) trays (p < 0.001), and torque errors were more pronounced at crowded front teeth (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the clinician should carefully consider the potential impact of hardness and crowding on bracket transfer accuracy, specifically in torque and angular orientation.

Objectives Whereas stationary stability of implants has been postulated for decades, recent studies suggested a phenomenon termed implant migration. This describes a change in position of implants as a reaction to applied forces. The present study aims at employing image registration of in vivo micro‐CT scans from different time points and to assess (a) if migration of continuously loaded implants is possible and (b) migration correlates with the force magnitude. Material and methods Two customized machined implants were placed in the dorsal portion of caudal vertebrae in n = 61 rats and exposed to standardized forces (0.5 N, 1.0 N, and 1.5 N) applied through a flat nickel–titanium contraction spring, or no forces (control). Micro‐CT scans were performed at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after surgery. The baseline image was registered with the forthcoming scans. Implant migration was measured as the Euclidean distance between implant tips. Bone remodeling was assessed between the baseline and the forthcoming scans. Results The findings confirmed a positional change of the implants at 2 and 8 weeks of healing, and a linear association between applied force and velocity of movement (anterior implant: χ2 = 12.12, df = 3, and p = .007 and posterior implant: χ2 = 20.35, df = 3, and p < .001). Bone apposition was observed around the implants and accompanied by formation of load‐bearing trabeculae and a general cortical thickening close and also distant to the implants. Conclusion The present analysis confirmed that implants can migrate in bone. The applied forces seemed to stimulate bone thickening, which could explain why implants migrate without affecting stability.