Background Over the last two decades, progress in prevention and treatment of caries and periodontal diseases has been translated to better oral health and improved tooth retention in the adult population. The ageing population and the increasing expectations of good oral health‐related quality of life in older age pose formidable challenges to clinical care and healthcare systems. Aims The objective of this workshop was to critically review scientific evidence and develop specific recommendations to: (i) prevent tooth loss and retain oral function through prevention and treatment of caries and periodontal diseases later in life and (ii) increase awareness of the health benefits of oral health as an essential component of healthy ageing. Methods Discussions were initiated by three systematic reviews covering aspects of epidemiology of caries and periodontal diseases in elders, the impact of senescence on caries and periodontal diseases and the effectiveness of interventions. Recommendations were developed based on evidence from the systematic reviews and expert opinion. Results Key messages included: (i) the ageing population, trends in risk factors and improved tooth retention point towards an expected increase in the total burden of disease posed by caries and periodontal diseases in the older population; (ii) specific surveillance is required to monitor changes in oral health in the older population; (iii) senescence impacts oral health including periodontitis and possibly caries susceptibility; (iv) evidence indicates that caries and periodontal diseases can be prevented and treated also in older adults; (v) oral health and functional tooth retention later in life provides benefits both in terms of oral and general quality of life and in terms of preventing physical decline and dependency by fostering a healthy diet; (vi) oral healthcare professionals and individuals should not base decisions impacting tooth retention on chronological age but on level of dependency, life expectancy, frailty, comfort and quality of life; and (vii) health policy should remove barriers to oral health care for vulnerable elders. Conclusions Consensus was reached on specific actionable priorities for public health officials, oral healthcare professionals, educators and workforce planners, caregivers and relatives as well as for the public and ageing patients. Some priorities have major implications for policymakers as health systems need to adapt to the challenge by systemwide changes to enable (promote) tooth retention later in life and management of deteriorating oral health in increasingly dependent elders.

Background The transition from a tooth requiring extraction to its replacement (with a dental implant) requires a series of clinical decisions related to timing, approach, materials, cost‐effectiveness and the assessment of potential harm and patient preference. This workshop focused on the formulation of evidence‐based consensus statements and clinical recommendations. Methods Four systematic reviews covering the areas of alveolar ridge preservation/bone grafting, immediate early and delayed implant placement and alveolar bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in a healed ridge formed the basis of the deliberations. The level of evidence supporting each consensus statement and its strength was described using a modification of the GRADE tool. Results The evidence base for each of the relevant topics was assessed and summarized in 23 consensus statements and 12 specific clinical recommendations. The group emphasized that the evidence base mostly relates to single tooth extraction/replacement; hence, external validity/applicability to multiple extractions requires careful consideration. The group identified six considerations that should assist clinicians in clinical decision‐making: presence of infection, inability to achieve primary stability in the restoratively driven position, presence of a damaged alveolus, periodontal phenotype, aesthetic demands and systemic conditions. Conclusions A substantial and expanding evidence base is available to assist clinicians with clinical decision‐making related to the transition from a tooth requiring extraction to its replacement with a dental implant. More high‐quality research is needed for the development of evidence‐based clinical guidelines.

Background: The recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the treatment of periodontitis in stages I-III provided evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Stage IV periodontitis shares the severity and complexity characteristics of stage III periodontitis, but includes the anatomical and functional sequelae of tooth and periodontal attachment loss (tooth flaring and drifting, bite collapse, etc.), which require additional interventions following completion of active periodontal therapy. Aim: To develop an S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis, focusing on the implementation of inter-disciplinary treatment approaches required to treat/rehabilitate patients following associated sequelae and tooth loss. Materials and Methods: This S3 Level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific recommendations and a structured consensus process with leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis culminated in recommendations for different interventions, including orthodontic tooth movement, EFP workshop participants and methodological consultant are listed in Appendix.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the periodontal tissues of patients with mandibular fixed retention for long or short periods of time. A total of 64 individuals were selected for this study using the following inclusion criteria: long-term lingual fixed retention; identical type of lingual fixed retainer bonded with the same materials; no cavities, restorations, or fractures of the mandibular anterior teeth; absence of habits and occlusal interferences; and canine guidance bilaterally. The resultant sample comprised 32 patients (mean age 25 years) who had been in retention for a mean period of 9.65 years (range 9-11 years) and an equal number retained for a period between 3 and 6 months. Plaque, gingival, and calculus indices, probing pocket depth, marginal recession, and bone level at the mandibular six anterior teeth were recorded for both groups. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were investigated with conventional descriptive statistics. Comparisons of the different variables between the two participant groups (long- and short-term retention) were carried out using a Mann-Whitney test for indices (plaque, gingival, and calculus), and a Fisher's exact test (two sided) for the remaining variables. No significant difference was found with respect to the plaque and gingival indices and bone level between the two groups. The long-term group presented higher calculus accumulation, greater marginal recession, and increased probing depth (P < 0.05). The results of this study raise the question of the appropriateness of lingual fixed retainers as a standard retention plan for all patients regardless of their attitude to dental hygiene. They also emphasize the importance of individual variability and cautious application of retention protocols after a thorough consideration of issues related to the anatomy of tissues and oral hygiene.

Under the conditions as applied in this study, the self-ligating brackets do not have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to the periodontal status of the mandibular anterior teeth.