To analyse the prevalence of complete and partial edentulism in the European adult population and to evaluate demographic and geographical factors associated with tooth loss and prosthetic rehabilitation needs using national health survey data. A cross-sectional ecological study used aggregated secondary data from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS), Eurobarometer, and national oral health surveys from Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Surveys published between 2010 and 2023 were included, representing more than 250,000 adults. Prevalence of complete and partial edentulism was analyzed by age group, sex, and geographical region. Descriptive statistics were calculated as percentages and absolute numbers with 95% confidence intervals. A generalized linear model with binomial distribution estimated adjusted odds ratios for complete edentulism. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. Complete edentulism among adults aged 65-74 years ranged from less than 6% in Northern and Western Europe to more than 40% in Eastern Europe, corresponding to approximately 3,200 to over 4,500 individuals. Partial edentulism exceeded 65% in adults aged 45 years and older across all regions. Multivariable analysis identified advanced age as the strongest predictor of complete edentulism (aOR = 28.4 for ≥75 vs. 45-54; p < 0.001), followed by residence in Eastern Europe (aOR = 9.8; p < 0.001). Sex was not independently associated with complete edentulism. Edentulism prevalence in Europe varies by age and geographical region. These findings support region-specific planning of prosthetic rehabilitation services and public health strategies to reduce oral health inequalities.

Background/Objectives: Routine administrative dental data can quantify specialty activity and reconstruct sequential patient movement when operational definitions and analytical provenance are explicit. To reconcile institutional activity through 30 June 2026, describe the derivation of all treatment records, and reconstruct patient transitions across 18 dental services. Methods: The official institutional report was the source of truth for descriptive totals. Patient-level workbooks were used for deduplication and transition analysis after excluding dates later than 30 June 2026. A treatment record was a coded administrative row; appointments and first visits followed the official report definitions. Directed transitions linked different services in consecutive dated patient stages. PageRank, betweenness and modularity were recalculated from the resulting matrix. Results: The official report comprised 98,685 treatment records represented by 476 treatment codes, 24,327 unique appointments and 1,351 first visits. There were 7,260 unique anonymized patient codes; 13,026 was the non-additive sum of service-specific patient counts. The cutoff-restricted chronology included 3,947 multiservice patients and 16,347 dated stages. The network contained 253 directed service pairs and 8,777 transitions (density 0.827). The leading PageRank values were RX (0.202), CIRUGÍA BUCAL (0.149), MEA (0.101), MIA (0.088), MPSI (0.062). Modularity was low (Q=0.042). Conclusions: The descriptive results are fully reconciled to the official report, while network estimates are restricted to reproducible individual trajectories from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2026. The observed network characterizes sequential service use and should not be interpreted as proof of formal referral.

Background/Objectives: Routine administrative dental data can quantify specialty activity and reconstruct sequential patient movement when operational definitions and analytical provenance are explicit. To reconcile institutional activity through 30 June 2026, describe the derivation of all treatment records, and reconstruct patient transitions across 18 dental services. Methods: The official institutional report was the source of truth for descriptive totals. Patient-level workbooks were used for deduplication and transition analysis after excluding dates later than 30 June 2026. A treatment record was a coded administrative row; appointments and first visits followed the official report definitions. Directed transitions linked different services in consecutive dated patient stages. PageRank, betweenness and modularity were recalculated from the resulting matrix. Results: The official report comprised 98,685 treatment records represented by 476 treatment codes, 24,327 unique appointments and 1351 first visits. There were 7260 unique anonymized patient codes; 13,026 was the non-additive sum of service-specific patient counts. The cutoff-restricted chronology included 3947 multiservice patients and 16,347 dated stages. The network contained 253 directed service pairs and 8777 transitions (density 0.827). The leading PageRank values were RX (0.202), CIRUGÍA BUCAL (0.149), MEA (0.101), MIA (0.088), and MPSI (0.062). Modularity was low (Q = 0.042). Conclusions: The descriptive results are fully reconciled to the official report, while network estimates are restricted to reproducible individual trajectories from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2026. The observed network characterizes sequential service use and should not be interpreted as proof of formal referral.