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.

Background: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the capability of an IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) device, used in standardized conditions, to detect margins of abutments prepared with knife-edge finishing line located at three different levels in relation to the gingival sulcus. Methods: sixty abutment teeth for treatment with full crowns were selected and randomly divided in three groups accordingly to the depth of the finishing line: Group A: supragingival margin; Group B: 0.5–1.0 mm into the sulcus; Group C: 1.5–2.0 mm into the sulcus. Temporary crowns were placed for two weeks and then digital impressions (Aadva IOS 100, GC, Japan) were made of each abutment. As controls, analog impressions were taken, poured, and scanned using a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Japan). Two standard tessellation language (STL) files were generated for each abutment, subsequently processed, and superimposed by Exocad software (Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), applying the “best-fit“ algorithm in order to align the scan of the conventional with the digital impressions. The distances between each preparation margin and the adjacent gingival tissue were measured. Four measures were taken, two interproximally and buccally, for a total of six measures of each abutment considering three modes of impressions. The data were statistically evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each site and the Bonferroni test. Results: there was no difference between the two kinds of impression in Group A in both sites, in Group B a difference of 0.483 mm and 0.682 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively, and in Group C 0.750 mm and 0.964 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively. The analysis performed on a site level (mesial/distal/vestibular) for the depth of both vertical preparations revealed significant differences (p < 0.0001). After a post hoc analysis (Bonferroni), vestibular sites of the shallow vertical preparations resulted in significantly lower values compared to the other sites prepared deeply. Conclusions: the results showed that the location of the margin is an important factor in making a precise and complete impression when IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) is used. Moreover, deep preparation into the sulcus is not recommended for IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) impressions.

Background: The aim of this study was to collect long-term restorative and endodontic outcomes of endodontically treated teeth (ETT). Methods: 298 teeth were included in the study and were recalled up to 18 years with a media of 10.2 years. At baseline, 198 sample teeth (66.44%) showed symptoms and 164 (55%) had periapical radiolucency. The most frequently used obturation techniques were warm gutta-percha in 80% of cases, and by carrier in 20%. A total of 192 ETT were restored by direct resin composite restorations, and 106 posts were luted. Moreover, 75 (25.16%) direct restorations remained as final restorations, 137 single crowns (45.97%), 42 (14.09%) partial adhesive crowns, and 42 (14.09%) abutments of fixed bridges were the final treatments. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed (α = 0.05). A Cox regression model was made. Results: results showed success for 92.6% of ETT up to 18 years, 2.68% (8 ETT) showed irreversible failures, and 14 (4.69%) reversible complications. Four ETT (1.34%) failed because of root fracture and the other four (1.34%) because of endodontic complications. Eight ETT (2.69%) showed non-irreversible periodontal complications and the other six (2.01%) prosthodontic complications. Accordingly, with Kaplan–Meier analysis, the survival rate after 18 years was 97.3% (Interval of Confidence (IC) 95.1–98.3). The presence of a short or long (at least 1 mm related to radiographic apex) quality endodontic filling displayed a statistically significant higher risk of complication (hazard ratio (HR) = 17.00 (IC 5.68–56.84). Furthermore, a clinically detectable not precise coronal margins predicts the presence of any clinical complication with a hazard ratio almost seven times higher than endodontically treated teeth with a proper margin (HR = 6.89 (IC 2.03–23.38)), while the presence of lucency at the baseline did not affect the risk of complication (HR = 0.575 (IC 0.205–1.61)). The presence of post, tooth position in the arch, and the type of it did not show a high-risk rate (HR = 1.85, 1.98, and 2.24, respectively). Conclusions: a correct filling (at the apex) of root canals combined with proper coronal margins allow obtaining a long-term high success rate in teeth with a periapical lesion at the baseline. The use of a post or not, when its placement is related to the residual amount of the crown, does not change the final outcome of the ETT.

Objective: The present review aimed to systematically evaluate the occurrence of caries in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), either Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), compared to healthy controls. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were screened. Caries experience was measured through the Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth (DMFT) index. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval was calculated between IBD patients and healthy controls. Results: Six studies were selected for the inclusion in the systematic review, 5 of which were also included in the quantitative synthesis of data. The WMD in the DMFT index between IBD and healthy subjects was 3.04 (1.52, 4.56) (p = 0.10). Subgroup analysis showed no difference (p = 0.31) between CD (2.52 [0.54, 4.49]) and UC (4.01 [1.52, 4.56]) subjects. Conclusions: There is a remarkably higher past and present occurrence of dental caries in subjects with IBD than healthy controls. This result should encourage clinicians to include oral health preventive programs in the overall treatment plan of IBD patients.