The 6 th EAO Consensus Conference, 11–12 February 2021, Virtual Meeting
2021; Wiley; Volume: 32; Issue: S21 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/clr.13865
ISSN1600-0501
Tópico(s)Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
ResumoClinical Oral Implants ResearchVolume 32, Issue S21 p. 1-4 PREFACEFree Access The 6th EAO Consensus Conference, 10–12 February 2021, Virtual Meeting First published: 12 October 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13865 [Correction added on 9 November 2021, after first online publication: The preface title has been corrected in this version.] AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The 6th Consensus Conference of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) will remain in our memories, as it took place in midst of the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. During the initial stages of the planning and preparation of this Consensus Conference, no one was able to imagine how fast and how significant the outbreak of COVID-19 would change the World. The resulting major challenge for the EAO and the organization of its Consensus Conference was that the entire scientific meeting had to be performed fully virtually via a specifically developed telecommunication platform (Figure 1). This platform and the associated organization of the groups and their work had to be established in a very short time, as the pandemic situation and the associated travel restrictions were constantly changing. Nevertheless, and although the experts could not physically meet to discuss and debate as usual, the first ever virtual Consensus Conference by the EAO can be considered as a true success! FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The EAO CC virtual platform, developed by the EAO office colleagues, Mrs. Soazig Daniel, and Mr. Philippe Bregaint (in collaboration with Open slides and services (Paris, France)) The initial plan was, similar to previous Consensus Conferences by the EAO, to unify the 69 invited experts during four days in a convenient retreat location, allowing for conventional group work during the days to elaborate the consensus statements based on the evidence in the systematic reviews, and plenary sessions in the evenings to discuss and approve the consensus statements by all participants of the consensus meeting. The preparations of the Consensus Conference had begun as usual. According to the well-established protocol for the organization and execution of EAO Consensus Conferences (Hämmerle, 2018; Hämmerle & Quirynen, 2009; Hämmerle et al., 2012, 2015; Hämmerle & van Steenberghe, 2006), in 2019 the EAO board assigned three responsible board members to define the topics and rapporteurs, and the invited guests per topic for this Consensus Conference. One of the initiators and long-term coordinators of the EAO Consensus Conferences, Prof. Christoph Hämmerle, had decided to step down from this leading position after having chaired 5 EAO Consensus Conferences, and Prof. Irena Sailer (Geneva, Switzerland) was nominated as his successor and co-chair. In addition, professors Henning Schliephake (Germany) and Björn Klinge (Sweden) were assigned by the board as co-chairs. In line with the change in leadership, the EAO Consensus Conference was foreseen to dislocate from Pfäffikon, Schwyz, to a new retreat location in Evian, France, close to Geneva. Furthermore, a new logo for the EAO Consensus Conference was created (Figure 2). FIGURE 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The new EAO CC logo An international scientific committee was formed consisting of Luca Cordaro (Italy), Helena Francisco (Portugal), Petra Gierthmühlen (Germany), Klaus Gotfredsen (Denmark), Lisa Heitz-Mayfield (Australia), David Nisand (France), Bjarni Pjetursson (Iceland), Isabelle Rocchietta (UK/Italy), Mario Roccuzzo (Italy), Mariano Sanz (Spain), Frank Schwarz (Germany), Andreas Stavropoulos (Switzerland/Sweden), Daniel Thoma (Switzerland), Stefan Wolfart (Germany), Ann Wennerberg (Sweden), and the three chairpersons of the Consensus Conference. This scientific committee selected the main topics for the planned four groups of the 2021 Consensus Conference and developed the respective review topics within the groups. Three to four topics, the responsible experts for these reviews, the rapporteurs, were nominated. Furthermore, the scientific committee selected additional experts per group to be assigned as group secretaries and chairpersons to guide the groups, and compile the groups’ consensus reports, and invited the group participants. New this time was to invite a team of Swedish experts on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) starting the workshop with online short lectures on methodology and quality assessment of published literature. The experts were subsequently available for the protocol development in the respective groups and offering final support during the CC. The following four main topics were identified as highly relevant, timely and important for the further progress in implant dentistry: Timing (immediate loading/ immediate placement, use of 3D planning) Soft-tissue management Peri-implantitis Fabrication, workflow, and delivery of reconstruction. The perception of patients of the different treatment modalities was considered specifically important, as the current developments and technologies in implant dentistry allow for a myriad of different treatment strategies involving different cost–benefit ratios, and the decision-making process becomes increasingly complex as evidence is not the only influencing parameter. Hence, in each main topic the following relevant subtopics were defined, with a special emphasis on the patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) in each group: Is timing influencing biological outcomes incl. complications/ adverse events? Is timing influencing aesthetic outcomes incl. complications/ adverse events? Long-term outcomes of timing-based concepts (e.g., “one-abutment-one-time”)? Patient perception of timing concepts/PROMs Soft-tissue assessment methods (2D/3D) Indications for soft-tissue augmentation alone vs. combined with hard tissue augmentation Long-term outcomes of different methods for soft-tissue augmentation (incl. different materials and timing) PROMs on soft-tissue management What is the role of the supra-crestal implant complex in the etiology and the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis? What is the influence of the implant material (zirconia vs. titanium) and the implant surface on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis? Changes in peri-implant soft-tissue levels following peri-implantitis, including patient perception (PROMs) Clinical outcomes of monolithic implant reconstructions Prosthodontic workflow efficiency (method of assessment, cost/benefit ratio, additive vs. subtractive, indications, limitations, predictability of 3D planning) Surgical workflow efficiency (method of assessment, cost/benefit ratio, additive vs. subtractive, indications, limitations, predictability/precision of 3D planning) Patient perception of treatment quality/PROMs. Due to the increasingly worrying situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated confusion about the measures for protective adaptation within the dental profession, early in 2020 the EAO board decided to assign a fifth group to the Consensus Conference to review the current state of knowledge on a topic of highest relevance—the COVID-19 review of European recommendations and experts’ opinion on dental care. This group was presided by Prof. Björn Klinge and included three experts for the survey and reviewing of the literature, Dr. Kathrin Becker, Dr. Katarzyna Gurzawska-Comis, and Dr. Giulia Brunello. Two new studies implemented by the group constituted the base for the EAO consensus statement on COVID-19 in dentistry. The first survey gave an update of European experts’ opinion on infection control and prevention in dentistry during second wave of the pandemic. It also included an analysis how experts’ opinion changed in light of the new scientific evidence since the first wave. In the second paper, guidelines from all European Union countries, Scotland, Switzerland, and United Kingdom were retrieved. Information on triage, mouth rinse, personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol free/generating procedures (nonAGP/AGP) and treatment of potentially infectious patients were summarized and compared with recommendations from international organizations (World Health Organization, European Center for Disease Control and US Center for Disease Control). All 17 reviews were submitted to Clinical Oral Implants Research before the Consensus Conference, for a pre-review and pre-revision of the manuscripts prior to the discussions at the consensus meeting. This allowed for efficient online group work for the approval of the review manuscripts, and the subsequent formulation of the groups’ consensus reports. These reports summarize the major findings from the reviews, and the present consensus statements related to the above-mentioned topics discussed within each group, in order to make recommendations for clinical practice, and suggest implications for research. All this is now available in this supplement to Clinical Oral Implants Research. But, back to the preparations of the Consensus Conference: After all planning was accomplished, and the rapporteurs, chairs, secretaries, and experts were invited the logistic preparations of the (still conventional) consensus meeting began in collaboration of the EAO office and the Consensus Conference chairs. Unfortunately, the pandemic situation had worsened, and it became more and more obvious that a conventional in-presence Consensus Conference would not be possible for the planned number of participants. As a consequence, in Fall 2020 the organizers started changing the meeting to a hybrid Consensus Conference format with partly in-presence and partly remote contributions. Finally, in January 2021, the entire Consensus Conference had to be switched to an online-only format (Figure 1). The meeting was shortened from four to three days, and the program adapted to the online format. To keep the known productive, yet, also entertaining and collegial spirit of this meeting, the EAO office colleagues had an excellent idea to send out EAO CC Socializer Packages (Figure 3) for the three days and evenings to all the participants to surprise the hard workers. With aid of the solid and liquid treats in these boxes, the original spirit and the unique atmosphere of the EAO Consensus Conferences were kept alive during the long hours of debates, despite the physical distance. FIGURE 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint (a, b) EAO CC Socializer Packages, for the first, second and third day of the Consensus Conference The EAO as an independent professional organization active in implant dentistry was the only body covering the costs of this Consensus Conference. No outside funding was used neither for the conference nor for publishing this supplement. All the conference participants were asked to declare dual commitments and possible conflicts of interest verbally and in writing. The written forms are kept on file at the EAO secretariat. Thanks to the continuous efforts of the EAO board to maintain its independence, the EAO is able to provide this valuable information to the field of implant dentistry based on the state of the science. The organizers express their special thanks to all the participants of the conference for dedicating their time, for providing valuable input, to the rapporteurs for their important efforts to prepare the reviews, the chairpersons and secretaries for guiding the group discussions during the conference and for writing the consensus reports of their groups, and to the board of directors of the EAO for the mandate to organize the 6th EAO Consensus Conference. Special thanks also to the Swedish experts on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (Swedish Agency on Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services) for their assistance during the preparations of the reviews, and during the Consensus Conference debates, and the all involved collaborators of the EAO office who helped maintain the Consensus Conference in steadily changing conditions. Furthermore, the expertise and dedication of Prof. Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, the Editor-in-Chief of Clinical Oral Implant Research, is highly appreciated. Finally, the continuous support of Wiley Blackwell is acknowledged allowing the results of this conference to be published in this highly ranked and respected scientific journal. On behalf of the EAO and its board Irena Sailer, Henning Schliephake and Björn Klinge REFERENCES Hämmerle, C. H. F. (2018). The fifth EAO Consensus Conference 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon Schwyz, Switzerland. Oral Implants Research, 29(Suppl. 18), 3– 5. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hämmerle, C. H. F., & Quirynen, M. (2009). The second EAO Consensus Conference 19–22 February 2009, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Oral Implants Research, 20(Suppl. 4), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01789.x. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hämmerle, C. H. F., Quirynen, M., & Klinge, B. (2012). The third EAO Consensus Conference 15–18 February 2012, Pfäffikon Schwyz, Switzerland. Oral Implants Research, 20(Suppl. 6), 1. Google Scholar Hämmerle, C. H. F., Quirynen, M., & Klinge, B. (2015). Proceedings of the fourth Consensus Conference of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) 11–14 February 2015, Pfäffikon Schwyz, Switzerland. Oral Implants Research, 26(Suppl. 1), iii– iv. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hämmerle, C. H. F., & van Steenberghe, D. (2006). The first EAO Consensus Conference 16–19 February 2006, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 17(Suppl. 2), 1. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume32, IssueS21Special Issue: The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021October 2021Pages 1-4 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)