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.

Objectives: To evaluate the implant failure, marginal bone loss (MBL), and other biological or technical complications of restorations supported by tilted and straight implants after at least 3 years in function.Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey to identify clinical studies published up to December 2017. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, the risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS‐I tool. Random‐effects meta‐analyses of relative risks (RRs) or mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/sensitivity analyses and application of the GRADE approach.Results: A total of 17 nonrandomized studies (eight prospective/nine retrospective) were included. The number of implants of the overall systematic review was 7,568 implants placed in 1,849 patients supporting either full‐arch or partial implant prostheses. No difference in the failure of tilted and straight implants was seen (eight studies; 4,436 implants; RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.28; p = 0.74), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and imprecision. Likewise, no difference in MBL was seen between tilted and straight implants (16 studies; 5,293 implants; MD = 0.03 mm; 95% CI = −0.03 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.32), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and inconsistency. Contradictory results regarding implant survival were found from prospective and retrospective studies, which could indicate bias from the latter.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present systematic review, no effect of implant inclination on implant survival or peri‐implant bone loss was found.

Objectives: To evaluate the sequential osseointegration of a novel titanium implant system based on a 3D printing technology in comparison with conventional titanium implants.Material and methods: Two novel titanium implants based on 3D printing were tested in the mandible of eight Beagle dogs. As a control, two different commercially available titanium implants were used. The implants were staged to accommodate healing periods of 2 and 6 weeks. The primary outcome variable was bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) in non‐decalcified tissue sections and micro‐CT analysis.Results: Histomorphometrically, the proportions of tissues adjacent to the implant surfaces were similar for all implants, whereas the BIC percentage of new mineralized bone was greater for the control implants after both 2 and 6 weeks (p < .05). Micro‐CT analysis revealed increasing osseous volume and BIC from 2 to 6 weeks. In contrast to the histomorphometry, the BIC evaluation with the micro‐CT data revealed a significantly higher BIC for the two test implants compared with controls (p < .001). The analysis of the total implant surface area disclosed a value that was approximately double as high for the test compared to the control implants.Conclusions: The novel titanium implant system based on 3D printing yielded values for osseointegration that were adequate and satisfactory. The higher percentage of new mineralized bone in the control implants is explained by the fact of a completely different three‐dimensional surface area.

Aim: To investigate the spontaneous regeneration of the implanto‐mucosal and dento‐gingival unit after complete removal of keratinized tissue (KT).Materials and Methods: One hemi‐mandible per dog (n = 4) was allocated to receive three dental implants (test sites, premolar region), whereas three premolars on the contralateral side were controls. After osseointegration, the entire KT (buccal + lingual) was surgically excised on all test and control sites, leaving the bone exposed. Clinical measurements were performed before excision (T₀) and after 12 weeks (T₁). Following healing, the animals were euthanized, and the specimens were histologically processed. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.Results: Clinical measurements revealed that at T₁, on all teeth, a band of KT was spontaneously regenerated (mean width: 2.60 ± 0.66 mm), whereas on implants, KT was detected only occasionally at mesial or distal but not at buccal sites (mean total: 0.35 ± 0.53 mm; p < .0001). Histologically, spontaneous regeneration of the dento‐gingival unit was evident, displaying masticatory mucosa. At the implant sites, on the other hand, the implanto‐mucosal unit was characterized by a non‐keratinized epithelium and elastic fibres, indicating the characteristics encountered in alveolar mucosa.Conclusion: After excision of KT at implant sites, the spontaneous regeneration of the soft tissue is characterized by a non‐keratinized epithelium typical for alveolar mucosa, while at tooth sites the spontaneous regeneration was characterized by soft tissue resembling gingiva.