Infection control is essential for the success of prosthodontic and oral implant procedures, as microbial contamination can lead to serious complications such as denture stomatitis and peri-implantitis. While synthetic disinfectants like chlorhexidine are commonly used, they may cause side effects including irritation, toxicity, and the development of microbial resistance over time. Natural products derived from plants, animals, and minerals are currently being explored as safer alternatives. Compounds such as epigallocatechin gallate from green tea; eugenol from clove oil; quercetin, thymol, cinnamaldehyde, and flavonoids from propolis; and terpinen-4-ol from tea tree oil have shown strong antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties. These natural agents are not only effective against harmful oral bacteria but also promote healing, are more biocompatible, environmentally friendly, and are often preferred by patients. However, challenges remain regarding their routine clinical use. The strength and composition of natural agents can vary, and there is a lack of consistent product standards, clinical trials, and comprehensive safety data. Currently, these products are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for dental use and are only available as over-the-counter remedies. Production costs and scalability must also be evaluated in comparison with synthetic alternatives. Emerging technologies, such as nanocarriers and targeted delivery systems, are being developed to enhance the effectiveness of natural agents in dental applications. Further clinical research and the establishment of clear regulatory guidelines are necessary to support their integration into clinical practice. Natural disinfectants hold significant potential to become valuable, safe, and sustainable tools for maintaining hygiene in prosthodontics and oral implantology.

Skin cancer, the most common global malignancy, is linked to ultraviolet (UV)-driven serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)synthesis, with its controversial role possibly reflecting cumulative UV exposure. This study aimed to assess the association and causality between 25(OH)D levels and skin cancer risk using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999–2018) data and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses, evaluating 25(OH)D as a screening biomarker.

We integrated data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999–2018; n = 21,357 U.S. adults, including 631 skin cancer cases) with MR analyses using genome-wide association study-derived genetic variants to assess the causal relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and skin cancer risk.

Higher 25(OH)D levels were associated with increased risks of nonmelanoma skin cancer [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 2.94 (2.10, 4.20)], melanoma [OR (95% CI) = 2.94 (1.73, 5.28)], and other skin cancers [OR (95% CI) = 2.10 (1.36, 3.36)]. MR analyses supported a causal relationship for nonmelanoma skin cancer [OR (95% CI) = 1.01 (1.00, 1.02)] and melanoma [OR (95% CI) = 1.00 (1.00, 1.01)]. Risks were highest in males, older adults, and individuals with obesity.

Higher serum 25(OH)D levels are associated with increased skin cancer risk, likely reflecting cumulative UV exposure. Routine monitoring of 25(OH)D, combined with UV exposure management, is recommended for risk stratification in skin cancer screening, particularly among high-risk groups. Validation in multiethnic cohorts is needed to confirm these findings.