Chapter 20: Emerging Frontiers and Lifelong Learning¶

Regenerative medicine, artificial intelligence, tissue engineering, bioprinting, immunotherapy, ABOMS Maintenance of Certification, and the discipline of continuous professional development.

Introduction¶

The practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery is defined by its breadth and by its perpetual evolution. Technologies that were investigational a decade ago -- cone beam CT, piezoelectric surgery, navigated implant placement -- are now standard of care. The surgeon who graduated residency five, ten, or twenty years ago is practicing in a clinical landscape that has fundamentally shifted, and the pace of change is accelerating.

This chapter surveys the most consequential emerging technologies poised to reshape OMS practice within the next decade, and then turns to the equally important discipline of lifelong learning: the ABOMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, continuing education strategy, and critical appraisal of the evolving literature.

Regenerative Medicine in OMS¶

Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (BMP-2)¶

Recombinant human BMP-2 (rhBMP-2; Infuse Bone Graft, Medtronic) remains the most widely used growth factor in OMS, with FDA approval for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (2002), open tibial fractures (2004), and maxillary sinus augmentation and alveolar ridge augmentation (2007).

Current OMS applications:

Sinus augmentation (lateral window and crestal approach) with absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) carrier
Alveolar ridge augmentation for implant site development
Socket preservation (off-label use in many practices)
Mandibular continuity defect reconstruction (off-label)

Clinical performance:

Sinus augmentation: Histomorphometric studies demonstrate 30--40% new bone formation at 6 months with BMP-2/ACS, comparable to autogenous bone graft (Boyne et al., J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2005)
Alveolar ridge augmentation: Vertical augmentation of 3--5 mm achievable with BMP-2/ACS plus titanium mesh or collagen membrane

Safety concerns:

Dose-dependent soft tissue swelling (particularly concerning in the floor of mouth and cervical spine regions)
Reports of ectopic bone formation, osteolysis, and cyst-like bone voids at high doses
FDA Public Health Notification (2008) regarding life-threatening swelling with cervical spine use
Risk-benefit profile is favorable for maxillary applications but warrants careful patient selection for mandibular use

Surgical Caution

When using BMP-2 in the posterior mandible or floor of mouth region, be aware of the potential for significant postoperative swelling that may compromise the airway. Consider reduced BMP-2 concentrations (0.5--1.0 mg/mL rather than the standard 1.5 mg/mL), perioperative corticosteroids, and close postoperative monitoring for the first 48--72 hours. Some surgeons avoid BMP-2 entirely in the floor of mouth due to swelling risk.

Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)¶

Autologous platelet concentrates represent a practical, low-cost regenerative adjunct:

PRF (Choukroun protocol):

Produced by centrifuging whole blood without anticoagulant (400g, 12 minutes)
Results in a fibrin matrix rich in platelets, leukocytes, and growth factors (PDGF, TGF-beta, VEGF, BMP-2)
No exogenous additives or biochemical manipulation
Can be used as membranes (compressed PRF), plugs, or liquid injectable PRF (i-PRF)

Clinical applications in OMS:

Socket preservation (PRF membranes over extraction sockets)
Sinus augmentation (PRF mixed with bone graft particulate)
Implant site preparation (PRF as a graft adjunct)
Soft tissue healing acceleration
TMJ arthrocentesis (intra-articular PRF injection)

Evidence summary:

Systematic reviews demonstrate modest but consistent acceleration of soft tissue healing with PRF
Bone regeneration enhancement is less convincingly demonstrated; studies show improved early-stage healing markers but variable long-term differences compared to controls
PRF in extraction sockets reduces postoperative pain and the incidence of alveolar osteitis (Hoaglin & Lines, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013)

Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs)¶

Stem cell-based regenerative approaches represent the next evolution beyond growth factors:

Cell sources for OMS applications:

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) -- Used in >75% of published OMS stem cell studies; typically harvested from the posterior iliac crest; contains MSCs, hematopoietic stem cells, and growth factors
Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) -- Harvested from extracted teeth (typically third molars); multipotent with osteogenic, neurogenic, and angiogenic potential
Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) -- Harvested via lipoaspiration; abundant and easily obtained but require processing
Periosteal progenitor cells -- Harvested from periosteum during surgical exposure; site-specific and readily available

Clinical evidence:

A 132-patient randomized controlled trial (2025) evaluating DPSCs for alveolar bone regeneration demonstrated statistically significant improvement in bone volume at implant sites treated with DPSCs versus control (scaffold alone), with CBCT-measured bone fill exceeding controls by a mean of 2.1 mm in vertical dimension at 6 months (Tresserra-Ninou et al., J Dent Res, 2025). This represents the largest clinical RCT of dental stem cells to date and provides the strongest evidence yet for clinical translation.

Clinical Pearl

BMAC can be obtained point-of-care using commercial centrifugation systems (e.g., Harvest SmartPrep, Arthrex Angel) and combined with bone graft matrices at the time of surgery. This avoids the regulatory complexity of cell culture expansion (which triggers FDA biologics regulation under 21 CFR 1271) while still providing MSCs, growth factors, and a concentrated cellular environment. The tiered FDA regulatory framework classifies minimally manipulated, homologous-use cell products differently from cultured and expanded cells.

Scaffold-Based Bone Regeneration¶

Scaffolds provide three-dimensional structural templates for cell attachment, proliferation, and tissue formation:

Current scaffold categories:

Scaffold Type	Material	Advantages	Limitations
Collagen-based	Type I collagen sponge/membrane	Biocompatible, resorbable, FDA-cleared	Low mechanical strength, rapid resorption
Calcium phosphate	HA, beta-TCP, biphasic	Osteoconductive, tunable resorption	Brittle, limited macroporosity
Polymer	PCL, PLGA, PLA	Tunable degradation, 3D-printable	Acidic degradation products, limited osteoconductivity
Composite	Collagen + CaP, Polymer + CaP	Combines mechanical and biological properties	More complex manufacturing
Bioactive glass	45S5, S53P4	Angiogenic, antibacterial	Brittle, limited shapes

Clinical evidence for scaffolds in OMS:

Published outcomes for scaffold-based bone regeneration in maxillofacial defects show a remarkably wide range of effectiveness: 0.2--70.5% new bone formation depending on scaffold composition, defect size, cell/growth factor loading, and follow-up duration (Yousefi et al., Biomaterials, 2024 systematic review). This variability underscores the importance of scaffold selection matched to the specific clinical defect and biological environment.

Artificial Intelligence in OMS¶

Overview of AI Applications¶

Artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), has rapidly entered the OMS domain. A systematic review identifies eight primary application domains for AI in oral and maxillofacial surgery (Khanagar et al., J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2024):

CBCT/CT segmentation
Pathology detection and classification
Orthognathic surgical planning
Cephalometric landmark identification
Implant planning optimization
Fracture detection and classification
TMJ disorder diagnosis
Prediction of surgical outcomes

CBCT and CT Segmentation¶

AI-driven segmentation of maxillofacial structures from CBCT and CT data has achieved remarkable accuracy:

Mandible segmentation: Dice similarity coefficients >0.98 (where 1.0 represents perfect agreement with manual segmentation) using U-Net-based architectures (Wallner et al., Sci Rep, 2023)
Maxilla segmentation: Dice coefficients >0.96
Teeth segmentation: Dice coefficients >0.95 for individual tooth identification and segmentation
Airway segmentation: Dice coefficients >0.94 for upper airway volume and cross-sectional area measurement
IAN canal identification: Dice coefficients >0.85 (lower due to small cross-section and variable image quality)

Clinical implications:

Automated segmentation reduces VSP planning time from 2--4 hours (manual) to 5--15 minutes (AI-assisted with manual verification)
Enables point-of-care 3D model generation without biomedical engineering support
Facilitates real-time surgical navigation with AI-generated 3D models

Clinical Pearl

AI segmentation tools (Materialise Mimics AI module, 3D Slicer with TotalSegmentator, OSA+ airway tools) are now commercially available and approaching clinical-grade accuracy. However, human verification of AI segmentation remains mandatory -- edge cases (metal artifacts, pathologic bone destruction, mixed-density lesions) can produce errors that are clinically significant. Treat AI segmentation as a first draft that the surgeon must review and edit, not a final product.

Pathology Detection¶

AI algorithms for detecting pathologic conditions on dental and maxillofacial imaging have demonstrated:

Periapical pathology detection: >90% accuracy on periapical and panoramic radiographs (Orhan et al., Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2020)
Cyst and tumor detection: >85% accuracy for differentiating odontogenic cysts from tumors on panoramic radiographs
Oral cancer detection: Deep learning models achieve >90% sensitivity for detecting potentially malignant oral lesions from clinical photographs (Uthoff et al., J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023)
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): AI models detecting MRONJ on panoramic radiographs with >85% accuracy

Orthognathic Surgical Planning¶

AI is transforming orthognathic surgery planning by:

Automated cephalometric analysis: AI-driven landmark identification achieves accuracy within 1--2 mm of expert manual placement for most landmarks (Park et al., Angle Orthod, 2019)
Surgical prediction: Deep learning models predict post-orthognathic soft tissue profile with >90% accuracy compared to conventional Arnett-type soft tissue analysis
Treatment outcome prediction: Machine learning models predict orthodontic treatment duration and surgical treatment need with increasing reliability
Automated surgical plan generation: Experimental systems generate complete Le Fort I and BSSO surgical plans from CBCT data with minimal human input, achieving positional accuracy within 1.5 mm of expert plans

Implant Planning¶

AI applications in implant surgery include:

Automated implant position optimization: AI algorithms analyze bone density, available bone volume, and prosthetic requirements to suggest optimal implant position, angulation, and size
Risk prediction: Machine learning models predict implant failure risk based on patient factors (smoking, diabetes, bone quality, site location)
Nerve avoidance: AI-enhanced IAN canal detection improves safety margin planning for posterior mandibular implants

Fracture Detection¶

AI for maxillofacial fracture identification on CT:

Mandibular fracture detection: >90% sensitivity on CT with multiple architectures (ResNet, EfficientNet)
Midface fracture classification: Automated Le Fort classification from CT with >85% accuracy
Orbital wall fracture detection: AI identifies orbital floor and medial wall fractures with sensitivity comparable to radiology residents
Triage application: AI-assisted CT reads in emergency departments can flag facial fractures for OMS consultation, reducing missed injuries

Tissue Engineering and Bioprinting¶

Current State¶

Tissue engineering combines scaffolds, cells, and biological signals to regenerate functional tissue. The OMS-relevant applications include:

Bone tissue engineering:

Most advanced clinical application; multiple scaffold + growth factor combinations in clinical trials
Clinically available products: Infuse (BMP-2 + ACS), OP-1 (BMP-7 + collagen, discontinued), various synthetic scaffolds with BMSCs

Cartilage/TMJ disc tissue engineering:

Preclinical stage with promising results in animal models
Region-specific cell seeding (mimicking the three-zone architecture of the native TMJ disc) is technically feasible but not yet clinically validated
Decellularized disc allografts are under investigation as biological scaffolds

Nerve tissue engineering:

Nerve guidance conduits (NGCs) for IAN reconstruction after segmental nerve gap are commercially available (Neurogen, Axoguard)
Bioengineered NGCs seeded with Schwann cells or neurotrophic factors are in preclinical development
Functional nerve recovery rates with NGCs remain inferior to autogenous nerve grafting for gaps >3 cm

Bioprinting for Craniofacial Applications¶

Bioprinting represents the convergence of tissue engineering and additive manufacturing (see also Chapter 16):

Extrusion-based bioprinting: Most widely used; deposits cell-laden hydrogel bioinks in 3D patterns; resolution ~200--500 microns
Inkjet bioprinting: Higher resolution (~50 microns) but limited to low-viscosity bioinks with lower cell density
Laser-assisted bioprinting (LIFT): Highest precision (~10 microns) but lowest throughput
Stereolithographic bioprinting (DLP-based): Uses photocrosslinkable bioinks; good resolution and speed

Craniofacial bioprinting milestones:

Bioprinted calvarial bone constructs implanted in rat critical-size defects with vascularization and new bone formation (Kang et al., Nat Biotechnol, 2016)
Multi-tissue bioprinting of bone-cartilage interfaces demonstrated in vitro (relevant for TMJ condyle engineering)
Full-scale mandibular segment bioprinting demonstrated in vitro (proof of concept; not yet implanted in humans)

Timeline to clinical translation: Simple craniofacial constructs (e.g., bone onlay grafts, socket preservation scaffolds) may reach clinical trials within 3--5 years. Complex vascularized constructs (mandibular segments, condylar heads) remain 8--15 years from clinical readiness.

Immunotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer¶

Relevance to OMS¶

OMS surgeons managing oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and other head and neck malignancies must understand the expanding role of immunotherapy:

Checkpoint Inhibitors¶

FDA-approved agents for recurrent/metastatic head and neck SCC:

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) -- Anti-PD-1 antibody; FDA-approved as first-line therapy for recurrent/metastatic HNSCC (with or without chemotherapy) based on KEYNOTE-048 trial
Nivolumab (Opdivo) -- Anti-PD-1 antibody; FDA-approved for recurrent/metastatic HNSCC after platinum-based chemotherapy failure, based on CheckMate-141 trial

Clinical impact on OMS practice:

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (pembrolizumab before surgery) is under investigation in multiple phase II/III trials for resectable OSCC, with preliminary data showing pathologic complete response rates of 10--20%
Patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors may present with unique immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) affecting the oral cavity: lichenoid reactions, xerostomia, oral mucositis, and osteonecrosis
Surgical planning must account for immunotherapy timing, as checkpoint inhibitors may affect wound healing (data are preliminary but generally suggest acceptable surgical complication rates)

Clinical Pearl

When managing patients on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, coordinate closely with the medical oncologist regarding perioperative immunotherapy holds. Current practice generally recommends holding immunotherapy for 2--4 weeks before major surgery and resuming 2--4 weeks after surgical wound healing is confirmed. Oral immune-related adverse effects should be documented and may require systemic or topical corticosteroid management.

Emerging Immunotherapy Approaches¶

CAR-T cell therapy: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is under investigation for head and neck SCC, targeting EpCAM, HER2, and other tumor antigens
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy: Autologous TILs expanded ex vivo and reinfused; early-phase trials in HNSCC
Oncolytic virotherapy: Engineered viruses that selectively replicate in and destroy cancer cells; talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is approved for melanoma and under investigation for HNSCC
Therapeutic cancer vaccines: Targeting HPV-associated oropharyngeal SCC with HPV E6/E7-directed vaccines

ABOMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC)¶

Program Structure¶

The American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (ABOMS) MOC program is a continuous, career-long certification maintenance process structured around a 10-year cycle:

Core components:

Annual registration -- Maintain active ABOMS status through annual registration and fee payment
Continuing education -- Minimum 20 hours per year of CE related to OMS; at least 10 hours must be from ABOMS-recognized providers
Article review -- Annual review and assessment of designated journal articles selected by ABOMS, testing the surgeon's ability to critically evaluate current literature
Clinical scenarios -- Completed in years 3, 6, and 9 of each 10-year cycle; case-based assessments covering the breadth of OMS practice
Oral and maxillofacial surgery qualifying examination (OAE) -- Comprehensive examination in years 5 and 10 of each 10-year cycle; previously required formal oral examination but now conducted as a structured assessment

graph LR
    A[Year 1] --> B[Year 2]
    B --> C[Year 3: Clinical Scenarios]
    C --> D[Year 4]
    D --> E[Year 5: OAE Examination]
    E --> F[Year 6: Clinical Scenarios]
    F --> G[Year 7]
    G --> H[Year 8]
    H --> I[Year 9: Clinical Scenarios]
    I --> J[Year 10: OAE Examination]
    J --> A
    style C fill:#f9a825
    style E fill:#e53935,color:#fff
    style F fill:#f9a825
    style I fill:#f9a825
    style J fill:#e53935,color:#fff

Annual Requirements¶

Every year, the diplomate must:

Register with ABOMS and pay the annual fee (\(500--\)600)
Complete minimum 20 hours of OMS-related continuing education
Submit documentation of CE completion
Complete the article review module (typically 3--5 articles with multiple-choice assessment)
Maintain an unrestricted license to practice OMS

Clinical Scenarios (Years 3, 6, 9)¶

Clinical scenario assessments present case-based questions across the OMS scope of practice:

Dentoalveolar surgery complications
Implant planning and complications
Facial trauma management
Orthognathic surgery planning
TMJ pathology and management
Oral pathology diagnosis and management
Anesthesia emergencies
Medical emergencies in the OMS office

Clinical Pearl

Clinical scenario preparation is most effective when approached as ongoing clinical practice review rather than cramming. Maintain a personal case log of interesting or challenging cases throughout the year, noting decision points, complications, and lessons learned. The AAOMS "OMS Knowledge Update" publication and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery board review articles are targeted resources.

OAE (Years 5, 10)¶

The Office Anesthesia Evaluation is a structured assessment that includes:

Facility inspection of the surgeon's office-based anesthesia suite
Review of emergency protocols, equipment, and drug inventory
Assessment of staff qualifications and training documentation
Review of anesthesia records and documentation practices
Mock emergency scenario (some cycles)

Continuing Education Strategy¶

Structuring a CE Plan¶

Board-certified OMS surgeons should approach CE strategically rather than reactively:

Annual CE allocation framework:

Category	Hours/Year	Purpose
AAOMS Annual Meeting	15--25	Comprehensive update across all domains
Subspecialty course (hands-on)	8--16	Skill development in focus area
Online/webinar CE	5--10	Flexible ongoing education
Article review (ABOMS)	3--5	Required MOC component
Practice management/coding	3--5	Business operations updates
Total	34--61	Exceeds 20-hour minimum

Key CE Venues for OMS¶

AAOMS Annual Meeting:

2025: Washington, DC
2026: Seattle, WA
Largest gathering of OMS surgeons; 200+ hours of available CE
Exhibits showcase new technology, implant systems, and practice management tools
Scientific sessions cover all domains of OMS practice

Other important CE venues:

AAOMS Board Review Course (targeted at board certification and MOC preparation)
AAOMS Dental Implant Conference
Advances in Head and Neck Surgery (Clinics in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery)
AO CMF courses (trauma and reconstruction)
Straumann/Nobel Biocare/Zimmer Biomet symposia (implant-focused)
International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (IAOMS) congress (biennial)

Critical Appraisal of the Literature¶

Evidence Hierarchy in OMS¶

The OMS surgeon must evaluate the quality of evidence supporting new technologies and techniques:

Level	Study Design	Example in OMS
I	Systematic review of RCTs / Meta-analysis	Cochrane review of PRF in socket healing
II	Randomized controlled trial (RCT)	DPSC 132-patient RCT (2025)
III	Controlled cohort study (non-randomized)	VSP vs. freehand mandibular reconstruction
IV	Case series, case-control study	Single-center experience with custom TMJ prosthesis
V	Expert opinion, case report	Technique description for novel procedure

Critical Appraisal Questions¶

When evaluating a study for practice integration, systematically assess:

Was the research question clearly defined? (PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome)
Was the study design appropriate for the question? (RCT for treatment efficacy; cohort for prognosis; case-control for etiology)
Were patients adequately randomized and blinded? (Selection bias, performance bias, detection bias)
Was the sample size adequate? (Power analysis; minimum detectable difference)
Were outcomes clinically relevant? (Patient-important outcomes vs. surrogate markers)
Were results statistically and clinically significant? (P-value alone is insufficient; assess effect size and confidence intervals)
Can results be applied to my patients? (Inclusion/exclusion criteria; practice setting; patient population)
Were conflicts of interest disclosed? (Industry sponsorship; author affiliations with device/pharmaceutical companies)

Surgical Caution

The OMS literature is disproportionately composed of Level IV and V evidence (case series, case reports, expert opinion). Only 3--5% of published OMS studies are RCTs. This does not mean that non-RCT evidence is worthless, but it does mean that the surgeon must be especially vigilant about confounders, selection bias, and overgeneralization when integrating new evidence into practice. A dramatic case report of a novel technique does not establish efficacy.

Key Journals for the OMS Surgeon¶

Journal	Impact Factor (2024)	Focus
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS)	2.7	Official AAOMS journal; comprehensive OMS
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	3.1	International scope; pathology, reconstruction
Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery	2.8	European focus; craniofacial, reconstruction
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology	2.2	Pathology, radiology, medicine
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	1.8	UK/international; trauma, pathology
Clinical Oral Implants Research	5.0	Implant-focused; high-quality RCTs
Journal of Clinical Periodontology	7.0	Periodontal/implant; regeneration
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery	4.2	Microsurgery, reconstruction, aesthetics

Looking Forward: The Next Decade¶

Near-Term (2025--2030)¶

AI-assisted diagnostic imaging becomes routine in OMS practice; CBCT auto-segmentation and pathology screening integrated into standard workflow
Point-of-care 3D printing expands from anatomical models to surgical guides in most academic and large group practices
PRF and BMAC become standard-of-care adjuncts for bone grafting procedures, supported by growing Level I/II evidence
Telemedicine stabilizes as 15--25% of all OMS patient encounters, primarily postoperative and consultation visits
Checkpoint inhibitors gain expanded FDA approval for neoadjuvant treatment of resectable oral cavity cancer, changing surgical sequencing

Medium-Term (2030--2035)¶

Stem cell therapies (particularly DPSCs and BMSCs) receive FDA approval for specific craniofacial bone regeneration indications
Bioprinted bone graft substitutes enter first clinical trials for alveolar bone augmentation
Fully automated orthognathic surgical planning achieves regulatory clearance; AI generates complete surgical plans from CBCT with surgeon approval
Robotic-assisted OMS expands beyond TORS to include robotic mandibular reconstruction and implant placement
Immunotherapy becomes first-line treatment for stage III/IV OSCC, with surgery reserved for residual disease

Long-Term (2035+)¶

Bioprinted vascularized mandibular segments enter clinical trials, potentially reducing dependence on free fibula flap reconstruction
Gene therapy for craniofacial anomalies moves from preclinical to first-in-human trials
AI surgical co-pilots provide real-time intraoperative guidance, complication prediction, and decision support
Personalized medicine in OMS: pharmacogenomic-guided analgesic prescribing, patient-specific implant biology optimization

Key Points¶

BMP-2 remains the primary growth factor in OMS regenerative surgery; safety profile is favorable for maxillary use but warrants caution in mandibular floor of mouth applications
PRF provides a practical, low-cost regenerative adjunct with modest evidence for soft tissue healing acceleration
A 132-patient DPSC RCT (2025) provides the strongest clinical evidence yet for dental stem cells in alveolar bone regeneration
Scaffold-based bone regeneration shows 0.2--70.5% new bone formation, highlighting the critical importance of scaffold selection
AI in OMS spans 8 application domains; CBCT segmentation achieves Dice >0.98 and pathology detection exceeds 90% accuracy
Orthognathic AI planning achieves >90% accuracy compared to expert plans
Checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are FDA-approved for recurrent/metastatic HNSCC and under investigation as neoadjuvant therapy
ABOMS MOC requires annual CE (20 hours/year), article review, clinical scenarios (years 3/6/9), and OAE (years 5/10)
AAOMS Annual Meetings: 2025 Washington DC, 2026 Seattle
Only 3--5% of published OMS studies are RCTs; critical appraisal skills are essential for evidence-based practice integration

References¶

Boyne PJ, et al. A feasibility study evaluating rhBMP-2/absorbable collagen sponge device for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25(1):11-29.
FDA Public Health Notification. Life-threatening complications associated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein in cervical spine fusion. July 2008.
Hoaglin DR, Lines GK. Prevention of localized osteitis in mandibular third-molar sites using platelet-rich fibrin. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:875380.
Tresserra-Ninou M, et al. Dental pulp stem cells for alveolar bone regeneration: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res. 2025;104(3):289-298.
Yousefi AM, et al. Scaffold-based bone regeneration in maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomaterials. 2024;305:122445.
Khanagar SB, et al. Application of artificial intelligence in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;82(1):112-128.
Wallner J, et al. Mandibular CT segmentation using deep learning: accuracy and clinical applicability. Sci Rep. 2023;13:4567.
Orhan K, et al. Evaluation of artificial intelligence for detecting periapical pathosis on CBCT scans. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(6):20200020.
Uthoff RD, et al. Deep learning for automated detection of oral potentially malignant lesions using clinical photographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;81(4):456-464.
Park JH, et al. Automated cephalometric landmark identification using deep learning. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):903-909.
Kang HW, et al. A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(3):312-319.
Burtness B, et al. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1915-1928.
Ferris RL, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141). N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856-1867.
American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (ABOMS). Maintenance of Certification Program Requirements. Updated 2025.
AAOMS. Annual Meeting Schedule and CE Programming. 2025-2026.