Background: There is a lack of information in the few studies reporting on the use of three-dimensional (3D) Printing for Patient Management. However, few studies have been found about recent advances in 3D printing technology, and biomaterials are revolutionizing medicine. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the knowledge and attitude of new generation dentist towards 3D printing and its application in various aspects in the field of Prosthodontics. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study on dental practitioners/Prosthodontist throughout Saudi Arabia using a self-administered questionnaire, which had items to assess the knowledge attitude and practices of study participants toward the use of 3D printing in dental management. Results: It was observed 17.5% of our participants had complete information and 10.5% had no information about 3D printers in the field of dental medicine. When assessed, male dentists had complete information about 3D printers (17.5%) than females (0%). 43.9% of our participants “strongly agreed” for 3D printers to be implemented in dentistry, 40.4% had “no idea” regarding the experience of 3D prints. Conclusion: Very few dentists have knowledge of 3D printing application in dentistry. Hence we strongly recommend organizing continuing dental education programmed on 3D printing either with hand on workshops, conferences and regular updates on the use of this technology.

Aim: The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the marginal bone loss in implant supported over-dentures in case of early loading on denture. Methodology: 36 edentulous participants (mean age 68 years, SD 9.2) were randomly assigned into three treatment groups (n¼12). A single implant was placed in the mandibular midline of participants to support an overdenture using a 6-week loading protocol. The control group received Southern regular implants and standard ball attachments. One group received Southern 8-mm-wide implants and large ball attachments. Another group received Neoss regular implants and Locator attachments. SPSS was used to determine between groups differences in marginal bone loss, implant stability, implant, and prosthodontic success (P<0.05). Results: Implant success after 1 year was 75% for Southern regular implant (control) group; and 100% for the Southern wide and Neoss regular implant groups (P¼0.038). Prosthodontic success was comparable between the groups but the maintenance (41 events overall, mean 1.2) was greater for the Locator and the standard ball attachments. Conclusion: Mandibular single-implant overdentures are a successful treatment option for older edentulous adults with early loading protocol using implants of different diameters and with different attachment systems.