Animal studies and the scarce clinical trials available that have been conducted suggest that bioactive surfaces on dental implants could improve the osseointegration of such implants. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of osseointegration of titanium (Ti) dental implants using bioactive surfaces with that of Ti implants using conventional surfaces such as sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) or similar surfaces. Applying the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the MEDLINE, PubMed Central and Web of Science databases were searched for scientific articles in April 2020. The keywords used were “dental implants”, “bioactive surfaces”, “biofunctionalized surfaces”, and “osseointegration”, according to the question: “Do bioactive dental implant surfaces have greater osseointegration capacity compared with conventional implant surfaces?” Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. 128 studies were identified, of which only 30 met the inclusion criteria: 3 clinical trials and 27 animal studies. The average STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) and ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) scores were 15.13 ± 2.08 and 17.7±1.4, respectively. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was reported in 3 studies; removal torque test (RTT)—in 1 study; intraoral periapical X-ray and microcomputed tomography radiological evaluation (RE)—in 4 studies; shear force (SF)—in 1 study; bone-to-implant contact (BIC)—in 12 studies; and BIC and bone area (BA) jointly—in 5 studies. All animal studies reported better bone-to-implant contact surface for bioactive surfaces as compared to control implants with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Regarding the bioactive surfaces investigated, the best results were yielded by the one where mechanical and chemical treatment methods of the Ti surfaces were combined. Hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium–phosphate (Ca–Ph) were the most frequently used bioactive surfaces. According to the results of this systematic review, certain bioactive surfaces have a positive effect on osseointegration, although certain coating biomolecules seem to influence early peri-implant bone formation. Further and more in-depth research in this field is required to reduce the time needed for osseointegration of dental implants.

In recent times, the use of natural products has gained momentum, either as a treatment or as adjuvants for other drugs in the treatment of different conditions. Propolis is a natural substance produced by bees which has proven useful for treating periodontal disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis gather evidence of the effectiveness of propolis in this kind of condition. The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched for scientific articles to identify the findings published up to October 2020. The MeSH phrases used in the search were: “periodontal diseases AND propolis treatment”; “gingivitis AND propolis treatment”; “periodontitis AND propolis treatment”; “propolis treatment AND oral health”; “propolis AND oxidative stress AND periodontitis”. The Boolean operator “AND” was used to combine the searches. Randomized trials where propolis was used in the treatment of different periodontal conditions were included. Non-randomized clinical studies were systematically reviewed and 224 studies were detected, eight of which met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Only three of these were selected for quantitative synthesis. In conclusion, propolis is safe to use and can improve the results of periodontal disease treatment, reducing probing pocket depth compared with treatment with a placebo (difference in means, fixed effects −0.67 [95% CI: −0.84, −0.50]).

Knowledge of dental anatomy through the assessment of the anatomic variations of each tooth’s root canal system is essential to undertake endodontic therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the different studies on the internal morphology of permanent mandibular incisors where Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) X-ray imaging is used. Pubmed, CENTRAL, Wiley Library and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for scientific studies included until March 2020. The terms used in the search were: “permanent mandibular incisors”, “root canal morphology” and “cone-beam computed tomography”. The search was limited to studies whose aim was the analysis of the morphology of the root canal system evaluating the parameters of methodology, population, sample, number and configuration. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a noticeable lack of unanimity in the setting adjustments of each of the CBCT devices used. The presence of two root canals varied from 0.4% to 45%. The most frequent configurations were Vertucci’s Types I, III, II, V, IV, VII and VI. Type VIII configuration was non-existent. CBCT revealed the existence of anatomical symmetry patterns, and there was no unanimity of criteria regarding the presence of a second root canal. Results concerning the presence of a second root canal in the mandibular incisors differ widely, with a possible influence of the geographic area where the study was conducted. The prevalence of a second canal is higher in mandibular lateral incisors than in mandibular central incisors. There was no direct relationship between voxel size (0.125–0.3 mm) and increased prevalence of a second canal.