Objectives: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non‐tapered implant design), and (d) medication‐related dental implant failures were addressed.Materials and methods: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.Results: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants.Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (“Mini‐implants”); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3.Tapered versus non‐tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.Conclusions: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non‐tapered dental implants.Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the response to conventional periodontal treatment between patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus from a clinical and metabolic standpoint.Methods: A prospective, parallel, comparative longitudinal clinical study was performed between type 2 diabetics and non‐diabetics with moderate generalized chronic periodontitis. The study period was 6 months. Conventional periodontal scaling and root planing were performed, and the response to this treatment was compared between the groups at 3 and 6 months, measuring the plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, level of clinical attachment, and gingival recession. In the diabetic patients, the clinical response was related to measurements of HbA1c and glucose in blood at 3 and 6 months.Results: An improvement in all clinical variables was observed, with no statistically significant differences between the groups, with the exception of probing depth (P <0.0207). The improvement observed in blood HbA1c levels confirmed a positive metabolic response to periodontal treatment, with a lower value for this variable at each measurement time.Conclusions: Both groups of patients showed a clinical improvement after basic non‐surgical periodontal treatment. The diabetic patients showed improved metabolic control (lower HbA1c) at 3 and 6 months after periodontal treatment.

To determine the prevalence and associated risk indicators for dentine hypersensitivity (DH), erosive tooth wear (ETW), gingival recession (GR), and gingival inflammation (bleeding on probing, BOP), with clinical and questionnaire data from seven European countries. A cross-sectional, observational, seven-European country, epidemiological study in systemically healthy adults. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding oral hygiene, diet and lifestyle factors. A clinical examination, by calibrated examiners, measured DH (Schiff; participant yes/no), ETW (basic erosive tooth wear examination, BEWE), GR (mm), and BOP (yes/no). 3551 participants completed the study, mean age 44 ± 17.4, 43.6 % male, 26.1 % rural dwellers. DH (Schiff ≥ 1) was seen in 75.9 % of participants, ETW (BEWE ≥ 1) in 97.6 %, GR (≥1 mm) in 87.9 %. 65.7 % participants had BOP ≥ 10 % sites, 34.3 % BOP<10 % with probing depths ≤3 mm. DH, ETW, GR and BOP increased markedly during young adult life. Thereafter, GR and ETW continued to increase, DH declined after around age 38-47, and BOP plateaued after age 48. DH was significantly associated with ETW (p < 0.001) and GR (p < 0.01); GR was significantly associated with BOP on lingual surfaces (p = 0.017). There were significant associations between increased full mouth BOP ≥ 10 % and reduced brushing duration and exercise frequency (p < 0.001); increased DH and heartburn (p < 0.001); decreased DH (p < 0.001), ETW (p < 0.001) and BOP ≥ 10 % (p = 0.002) with powered toothbrush use. Prevalence of oral conditions assessed was high, greater than in the majority of the GR, DH and ETW literature. Periodontal health was seen in a third of sampled individuals. All these conditions varied markedly by country and age. Oral diseases and conditions were highly prevalent throughout the seven European countries investigated. For the majority, these conditions are eminently preventable and treatable by changing behaviours. Upstream policy changes are needed to address these health challenges, to raise awareness and to empower individuals with oral health education and support.

Background: This Consensus Workshop dealt with diagnostic methodologies in the context of surveillance, screening, assessment of stage and grade, prognosis, monitoring and prediction of periodontal status. Several elements provided the impetus for the workshop, including the limited quality of available research on diagnostic tests, the rapid development of new technologies, the implementation of the 2018 classification and the declarations of the World Health Organisation on diagnosis and oral health. Aim: To update and evaluate the evidence on diagnostic methods, considering recent advances in knowledge and the implementation of the 2018 classification. Methods: The European Workshop Committee of the European Federation of Periodontology guided the development of a consensus report after commissioning eight systematic reviews within three working groups. The reviews were discussed during the in‐person consensus meeting involving 70 participants from 21 different countries. Results: Working Group 1 discussed innovations in traditional diagnostic approaches, justified manual probing as the reference standard and assessed the value of image‐based methods. Working Group 2 analysed diagnostic tests based on microbial and host biomarkers and genetic diagnostic tests. Working Group 3 covered emerging technologies to be used within dental and non‐dental clinical settings, focusing principally on the impact of questionnaire‐based assessments and artificial intelligence systems (AIS) in interpreting different data modalities. Conclusion: Although manual periodontal probing is firmly established as the reference standard, additional approaches based on imaging, biomarkers, host genetics, questionnaires and the development of emerging applied data science methods (e.g., AIS) are increasingly integrated in periodontal diagnostics.

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the influence of two different factors: membranes and soft tissue graft influence for the extraction socket preservation.