Objective Evaluation of survival of teeth with class III furcation involvement (FI) ≥5 years after active periodontal treatment (APT) and identification of prognostic factors. Methods All charts of patients who completed APT at the Department of Periodontology of Goethe‐University Frankfurt, Germany, beginning October 2004 were screened for teeth with class III FI. APT had to be accomplished for ≥5 years. Charts were analysed for data of class III FI teeth at baseline (T0), at accomplishment of APT (T1), and at the last supportive periodontal care (T2). Baseline radiographic bone loss (RBL) and treatment were assessed. Results One‐hundred and sixty patients (age: 54.4 ± 9.8 years; 82 females; 39 active smokers; 9 diabetics, 85 stage III, 75 stage IV, 59 grade B, 101 grade C) presented 265 teeth with class III FI. Ninety‐eight teeth (37%) were lost during 110, 78/137 (median, lower/upper quartile) months. Logistic mixed‐model regression and mixed Cox proportional hazard model associated adjunctive systemic antibiotics with fewer tooth loss (26% vs. 42%; p = .019/.004) and RBL (p = .014/.024) and mean probing pocket depth (PPD) at T1 (p < .001) with more tooth loss. Conclusions Subgingival instrumentation with adjunctive systemic antibiotics favours retention of class III furcation‐involved teeth. Baseline RBL and PPD at T1 deteriorate long‐term prognosis.

Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to create a valid and reliable set of assessment questions for examining Evidence-based Dentistry (EbD) knowledge. For this reason, we adapted and validated for dental students the Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), which assesses Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) abilities. Methods: The Berlin Questionnaire was validated with medical residents. We adapted it for use in a dentistry setting. An expert panel reviewed the adapted BQ for content validity. A cross-sectional cohort representing four training levels (EbD-novice dental students, EbD-trained dental students, dentists, and EbM−/EbD-expert faculty) completed the questionnaire. A total of 140 participants comprised the validation set. Internal reliability, item difficulty and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the mean total scores of students to faculty and comparing proportions of students and faculty who passed each item. Results: Among the 133 participants (52 EbD-novice dental students, 53 EbD-trained dental students, 12 dentists, and 16 EbM-/ EbD-expert faculty), a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference was evident in the total score corresponding to the training level. The total score reliability and psychometric properties of items modified for discipline-specific content were acceptable. Cronbach's alpha was 0.648. Conclusion: The adapted Berlin Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in Evidencebased Dentistry in dental students. Future research will focus on refining the instrument further.