Herrera David, Tonetti Maurizio S, Chapple Iain, Kebschull Moritz, Papapanou Panos N, Sculean Anton, Abusleme Loreto, Aimetti Mario, Belibasakis Georgios, Blanco Juan, Bostanci Nagihan, Bouchard Philippe, Buduneli Nurcan, Calciolari Elena, Carra Maria Clotilde, Chackartchi Tali, Dannewitz Bettina, Danser Monique, Deng Ke, Derks Jan, Dietrich Thomas, Discepoli Nicola, Divaris Kimon, Dommisch Henrik, Donos Nikos, Dutzan Nicolás, Eickholz Peter, Eren Kuru Bahar, Faria Almeida Ricardo, Farina Roberto, Feher Balazs, Figuero Elena, Giannobile William, Gosset Marjolaine, Graziani Filippo, Gursoy Ulvi K, Hagenfeld Daniel, Jepsen Karin, Jepsen Sören, Kumar Purnima, Laine Marja L, Lambert France, Lang Niklaus P, Li Yuan, Loos Bruno, Madianos Phoebus, Matesanz Paula, Mealey Brian, Molina Ana, Montero Eduardo, Nibali Luigi, Preshaw Philip, Rakic Mia, Ramseier Christoph, Salvi Giovanni, Sánchez Nerea, Sanz-Sánchez Ignacio, Shapira Lior, Stavropoulos Andreas, Tamimi Faleh, Teughels Wim, Tomasi Cristiano, Trombelli Leonardo, Vassilopoulos Spyros, Verket Anders, West Nicola, Windisch Peter, Sanz Mariano
ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n (Ciudad Universitaria), Madrid, Spain.
Shanghai PerioImplant Innovation Center, Institute for Oral, Craniofacial and Sensory Research, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Centre for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Ninth People Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
J Clin Periodontol. 2025 Aug;52 Suppl 29(Suppl 29):4-33. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.14152. Epub 2025 May 4.
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.
To update and evaluate the evidence on diagnostic methods, considering recent advances in knowledge and the implementation of the 2018 classification.
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.
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.
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.
本次共识研讨会探讨了牙周状况监测、筛查、分期与分级评估、预后、监测及预测方面的诊断方法。促成此次研讨会的因素有多个，包括现有诊断测试研究质量有限、新技术的快速发展、2018年分类法的实施以及世界卫生组织关于诊断和口腔健康的声明。
考虑到知识的最新进展和2018年分类法的实施，更新并评估诊断方法的证据。
欧洲牙周病学联合会欧洲研讨会委员会在委托三个工作组进行八项系统评价后，指导编写了一份共识报告。在有来自21个不同国家的70名参与者参加的面对面共识会议上对这些评价进行了讨论。
第一工作组讨论了传统诊断方法的创新，将手动探诊确定为参考标准并评估了基于图像方法的价值。第二工作组分析了基于微生物和宿主生物标志物的诊断测试以及基因诊断测试。第三工作组涵盖了牙科和非牙科临床环境中使用的新兴技术，主要关注基于问卷的评估和人工智能系统（AIS）在解释不同数据模式方面的影响。
尽管手动牙周探诊已牢固确立为参考标准，但基于成像、生物标志物、宿主遗传学、问卷以及新兴应用数据科学方法（如AIS）开发的其他方法越来越多地融入牙周诊断中。
