Professor Søren Schou: interview with the President of the EAO

On the occasion of the EAO congress in Athens, Marianne Steinbeck, project manager EDI Journal, talked to Professor Søren Schou, President of the EAO.

 

Most EAO members are general practitioners, yet at events like this we always seem to meet the same scientifically oriented crowd. How do you plan to get more general dentists to join EAO and to attend events like this meeting?
Well, approximately 60 per cent of our members are actually specialists – surgeons, periodontists and prosthodontists – and researchers. The others are general practitioners with a specific interest in oral implantology. It is the EAO’s mission to bridge the gap between science and clinical practice by promoting the international exchange of information through networking of clinicians and scientists within implant dentistry. The annual meetings keep clinicians and researchers informed about the most recent achievements and innovations within the field, and they are an excellent opportunity for general practitioners to update their knowledge about implant treatment. Between 15 and 26 per cent of the attendees at the annual meetings are EAO members. We have introduced an EAO Members Lounge to promote and facilitate networking. The EAO Board has identified a need for improved membership benefits of special relevance for general practitioners.

One thing we do to attract more practitioners is to try and select topics specifically relevant to clinicians. For next year in Copenhagen we are planning a session with a focus on the main conclusions from the 3rd EAO Consensus Conference, to take place in Switzerland in February 2012. By digesting the main conclusions from the Consensus Conference and presenting cases explaining them, we will try to make the annual meetings even more valuable for general dental practitioners.

You were Chairman of the EAO Abstract Committee. Which fields currently have the highest number of publications, and which fields have the most promising results and new findings – not necessarily the same fields, I would presume?
I can draw a few conclusions from the abstracts submitted for the annual meeting in Athens – there were a full 512 of them, of which 453 were accepted. More than 50 per cent of the accepted abstracts focus on the outcomes of various implant treatments, including risk factors; 164 abstracts were about the surgical aspects of implant outcomes, and 104 abstracts addressed prosthetic aspects of implant outcomes. Most abstracts focus on new and innovative treatment modalities that may simplify the treatment or make it more predictable. Promising results were seen at the EAO Research Competitions – in Basic Research as well as in Clinical Research.

“Treatment planning in implant dentistry” in Athens covered aspects from risk assessment in diagnostics to the predictability of aesthetic outcomes and computer-assisted prosthetic procedures – does this mean less demand for skilled and experienced dentists?
Implant dentistry has evolved at a fast pace. Planning is an essential step prior to any treatment – and it must home in on two core issues: the treatment goal and how it can be achieved. Firstly, it is crucial to match patients’ expectations with the state of the art in treatment outcomes. In a second phase, to avoid common pitfalls of implant dentistry, the most suitable treatment should be matched with the desired goal and with the patient. In addition, alternative treatment modalities should be considered.

Over the years, the profession has evolved, and there are many innovations and new technologies. But that does not mean that the dentist has been marginalized. His or her role is still crucial, even though some procedures have been simplified and improved. New, modified, and advanced treatment modalities have been introduced, letting us treat patients we were unable to help not too many years ago. Some treatment modalities are straightforward; others are more complex. Our understanding of the factors that distinguish straightforward from more complex treatments has improved significantly in recent years.

In your opinion, which field in implant dentistry is in most need of better, and perhaps more timely, research? Which field most urgently requires reliable and practical treatment guidelines?
The EAO was pleased to note a high level of quality of the research presented and the immense expertise embodied in the speakers at its annual meeting. Much effort currently goes toward simplifying implant treatment. I am convinced that serious improvements will characterize the near future. Many risk factors have only recently been identified, and we still lack information about the exact repercussions of quite a few of them. But we already have more information on the influence of risk factors such as smoking, diabetes and high susceptibility to periodontitis.

Thank you very much, Professor Schou, for taking the time for this interview.