%0 Journal Article
%A Herrera González, David
%A Maurizio Tonetti
%A Ian Chapple
%A Moritz Kebschull
%A Panos N Papapanou
%A Anton Sculean
%A Loreto Abusleme
%A Mario Aimetti
%A Georgios Belibasakis
%A Juan Blanco
%A Nagihan Bostanci
%A Phillipe Bouchard
%A Nurcan Budunelli
%A Elena Calciolari
%A Maria Clotilde Carra
%A Tali Chackartchi
%A Bettina Dannewitz
%A Monique Danser
%A Ke Deng
%A Jan Derks
%A Thomas Dietrich
%A Nicola Discepoli
%A Kimon Divaris
%A Henrik Dommisch
%A Nikos Donos
%A Nicolás Duztan
%A Peter Eickholz
%A Bahar Eren Kuru
%A Ricardo Faria Almeida
%A Roberto Farina
%A Balazs Feher
%A Figuero Ruiz, Elena
%A William Giannobile
%A Marjolaine Gosset
%A Filippo Graziani
%A Ulvi K Gursoy
%A Daniel Hagenfeld
%A Karin Jepsen
%A Sören Jepsen
%A Purnima Kumar
%A Marja L Laine
%A France Lambert
%A Niklaus P Lang
%A Yuang Li
%A Bruno Loos
%A Phoebus Madianos
%A Matesanz Pérez, Paula
%A Brian Mealey
%A Molina Villar, Ana Rosario
%A Montero Solís, Eduardo
%A Luigi Nibali
%A Philip Preshaw
%A Mia Rakic
%A Christoph Ramseier
%A Giovanni Salvi
%A Sánchez Pérez, Silvia Nerea
%A Sanz Sánchez, Ignacio
%A Lior Shapira
%A Andreas Stavropoulos
%A Faleh Tamimi
%A Wim Teughels
%A Cristiano Tomasi
%A Leonardo Trombelli
%A Spyros Vassilopoulos
%A Anders Verket
%A Nicola West
%A Peter Windisch
%A Sanz Alonso, Mariano
%T Consensus Report of the 20th European Workshop on Periodontology: Contemporary and Emerging Technologies in Periodontal Diagnosis
%D 2025
%U https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/130780
%X AbstractBackground: 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.Keywords: artificial intelligence systems; biomarkers; medical imaging; periodontal probing; periodontology; questionnaires; radiographs.© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Clinical Periodontology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
%~