The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

Objectives:The aim of Working Group 4 was to address topics related to biologic risks and complications associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) diagnosis of peri-implantitis, (b) complications associated with implants in augmented sites, (c) outcomes following treatment of peri-implantitis, and (d) implant therapy in geriatric patients and/or patients with systemic diseases were addressed.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Schuurs–Hoeijmakers syndrome (SHMS) or PACS1 Neurodevelopmental disorder is a rare disorder characterized by intellectual disability, abnormal craniofacial features and congenital malformations. SHMS is an autosomal dominant hereditary disease caused by pathogenic variants in the PACS1 gene. PACS1 is a trans-Golgi-membrane traffic regulator that directs protein cargo and several viral envelope proteins. It is upregulated during human embryonic brain development and has low expression after birth. So far, only 54 patients with SHMS have been reported. In this work, we report on seven new identified SHMS individuals with the classical c.607C > T: p.Arg206Trp PACS1 pathogenic variant and review clinical and molecular aspects of all the patients reported in the literature, providing a summary of clinical findings grouped as very frequent (≥75% of patients), frequent (50–74%), infrequent (26–49%) and rare (less than ≤25%).

Objectives The aim of the present randomized, controlled clinical multicenter trial was to compare a polyethylene glycol (PEG) and a native collagen membrane (BG) for simultaneous guided bone regeneration at bony dehiscence‐type defects around bone level titanium implants. Material and methods The study enrolled 117 patients requiring implant treatment in the posterior maxilla or mandible with expected buccal bony dehiscence‐type defects at the placed titanium implants. According to a parallel groups design, defects were filled with a synthetic bone filler and randomly assigned to either PEG or BG membrane. As primary parameter, the relative vertical bone fill was assessed at baseline and at re‐entry after 6 months of healing. As secondary parameters, the marginal bone level (MBL) was assessed radiographically and soft tissue conditions were recorded up to 18 months postloading. Results Both groups showed comparable vertical bone fill revealing a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG). The absolute mean reduction in defect size was 2.5 mm in the PEG group and 3.2 mm in the BG group. Although both groups revealed a statistically significant mean defect reduction (p < .001), a comparison between the two groups did not show statistical significances. The non‐inferiority test with inferiority limit of −5% could not be rejected, based on the 90% confidence interval of the differences of the two means with lower limit −15.4%. After 18 months, an MBL increase of 0.45 ± 0.43 mm in the PEG group and 0.41 ± 0.81 mm in the BG group was detected (p < .001). Soft tissue complications were observed in both groups without showing statistical significance. Conclusions Both membranes supported bone regeneration at dehiscence‐type defects and obtained vertical bone fill with a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG); however, the non‐inferiority of PEG could not be shown.

Objective The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). Material and methods Thirty patients received thirty implants (8–12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter, and a tissue level design) to replace single teeth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic, clinical parameters, and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery. Results At 12 months post‐final loading, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to esthetics. Mean Index Crown Aesthetic score was 6.31 (95% C.I. 4.59–8.04) and 6.07 (95% C.I. 4.21–7.93) for ceramic and titanium implants, respectively. The pink esthetic score (PES) was 7.81 (95% C.I. 6.90–8.73) for ceramic implants and 7.86 (95% C.I. 7.11–8.60) for titanium implants, with no significant differences between groups. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the other clinical parameters and PROMs. Conclusions Monotype ceramic implants have proven to be a good treatment option in the upper anterior sector, showing favorable esthetic results, being comparable to titanium implants. This clinical trial has been registered in clinical trials with the identifier CI_RCT_US16 and registration number NCT04707677. A retrospective registration of the clinical trial was carried out since registration was not mandatory on the date the study began.