Three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies are advanced manufacturing technologies based on computer-aided design digital models to create personalized 3D objects automatically. They have been widely used in the industry, design, engineering, and manufacturing fields for nearly 30 years. Three-dimensional printing has many advantages in process engineering, with applications in dentistry ranging from the field of prosthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and oral implantology to orthodontics, endodontics, and periodontology. This review provides a practical and scientific overview of 3D printing technologies. First, it introduces current 3D printing technologies, including powder bed fusion, photopolymerization molding, and fused deposition modeling. Additionally, it introduces various factors affecting 3D printing metrics, such as mechanical properties and accuracy. The final section presents a summary of the clinical applications of 3D printing in dentistry, including manufacturing working models and main applications in the fields of prosthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and oral implantology. The 3D printing technologies have the advantages of high material utilization and the ability to manufacture a single complex geometry; nevertheless, they have the disadvantages of high cost and time-consuming postprocessing. The development of new materials and technologies will be the future trend of 3D printing in dentistry, and there is no denying that 3D printing will have a bright future.

Patients with preoperative perforator infarct adjacent to the stenotic segment have a higher perforator stroke frequency after elective stenting of intracranial stenosis. Most perforator strokes occur during the procedure and reach the maximum deficit almost immediately. Functional outcomes are relatively good.

Symptomatic severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis did not present a higher subsequent stroke risk than moderate stenosis after elective angioplasty with a balloon-expandable stent. Patients with severe stenosis may benefit from successful stent placement, and randomized trials are necessary to demonstrate this possible benefit.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the important types of liver cancer. LncRNA is an important regulatory factor that regulates many biological processes such as tumor cells during tumorigenesis and metastasis. LINC00346 has been associated with various types of liver cancer, but its role and regulatory mechanism in HCC remain unclear. In our study, we found the LINC00356-miR-199a-3p-CDK1/CCNB1 axis through bioinformatics analysis. The expressions of LINC00356, miR-199a-3p, CDK1, and CCNB1 in HCC and normal hepatocytes were determined by qRT-PCR and WB. The results showed that LINC00356, CDK1 and CCNB1 were highly expressed in HCC, while miR-199a-3p was lowly expressed. Dual luciferase reporter gene assay, RIP and RNA-pull down assays demonstrated the targeted binding relationship of LINC00346-miR-199a-3p-CDK1/CCNB1. Overexpressing LINC00460 and silencing miR-199a-3p promoted cell invasion, inhibited apoptosis of HCC, and arrested the cell cycle in S phase while opposite results were obtained when silencing LINC00346, CDK1, and CCNB1. LINC00346 indirectly affects liver cancer by promoting the expression of CDK1/CCNB1 through competitive adsorption of miR-199a-3p. In addition, the study also demonstrated that overexpression of LINC00346 indirectly inhibited the expression of p53 and p21 proteins by promoting CDK1/CCNB1 expressions, thereby blocking the p53 signaling pathway. These results proved that LINC00346 could regulate the expression of CDK1/CCNB1 through the competitive adsorption of miR-199a-3p, thereby affecting the p53 signaling pathway and finally regulating the apoptosis, invasion and cell cycle of HCC cells. In conclusion, LINC00346 can be used as a tumor promoter and potential therapeutic target for HCC metastasis and prognosis.

Purpose: Current studies on endovascular intervention for intracranial atherosclerosis select patients based on luminal stenosis. Coronary studies demonstrated that fractional flow measurements assess ischemia better than anatomical stenosis and can guide patient selection for intervention. We similarly postulated that fractional flow can be used to assess ischemic stroke risk. Methods: This was a feasibility study to assess the technical use and safety of applying a pressure guidewire to measure fractional flow across intracranial stenoses. Twenty patients with severe intracranial stenosis were recruited. The percentage of luminal stenosis, distal to proximal pressure ratios (fractional flow) and the fractional flow gradients across the stenosis were measured. Procedural success rate and safety outcomes were documented. Results: All 20 patients had successful crossing of stenosis by the pressure guidewire. Ten patients underwent angioplasty, and 5 had stenting performed. There was one perforator stroke, but not related to the use of the pressure wire. For the 13 patients with complete pre- and postintervention data, the mean preintervention stenosis, fractional flow and translesional pressure gradient were 76.2%, 0.66 and 29.9 mm Hg, whilst the corresponding postintervention measurements were 24.7%, 0.88 and 10.9 mm Hg, respectively. Fractional flow (r = -0.530, p = 0.001) and the translesional pressure gradient (r = 0.501, p = 0.002) only had a modest correlation with the luminal stenosis. Conclusion: Fractional flow measurement by floating a pressure guidewire across the intracranial stenosis was technically feasible and safe in this study. Further studies are needed to validate its use for ischemic stroke risk assessment.