EAO Congress Scientific Report (Issue 2)

 

Introduction

This report provides a summary of the 16 principal sessions which took place at the EAO’s 25th annual Scientific Meeting. The report was written by a group of delegates at the meeting who have previously prepared similar summaries for circulation among their friends following past EAO meetings.

As described in the methodology below, all speakers were given the opportunity to review and amend the editorial that had been written about their presentation, although a significant minority did not respond to the editors’ requests for feedback. The EAO wishes to emphasise that this is not a peer-reviewed scientific report. It was written by the team of volunteer delegates, albeit with input from a large number of the speakers represented. The contents do not necessarily represent the view of the EAO and readers are responsible for independently evaluating any information contained in the report. Nonetheless, the EAO hopes that the report will provide a useful and informative summary of the proceedings of its 25th annual Scientific Meeting.

If you are viewing this page on your smartphone or have issues reading the report below, you may access the PDF document

 

 

 

Copyright

A number of speakers allowed a selection of their slides to be included in the report. Readers should be aware that copyright in any original content included in these slides remain the property of the speakers, and/ or aby other third-party copyright holders. These slides must not be circulated other than as a part of this report, and should not be copied or reused without the express permission of the relevant speakers.

 

Methodology

The methodology underpinning this report is as follows:

  1. A team of dentist delegates volunteered to write the report and arranged to attend all the sessions covered in it during the EAO’s 2016 meeting in Paris
  2. They provided a draft summary of each presentation to the EAO, which arranged for a copywriting team to edit it. This was not a scientific editing process, and instead concentrated on grammar and consistency
  3. The editors returned the edited contributions to the dentist delegates highlighting any questions they had
  4. On receipt of responses to their questions, the editors updated the contributions, then forwarded them to each of the speakers featured, along with a request for a selection of their slides (selected by the writers)
  5. Each speaker was emailed up to three times to request their feedback. The majority replied and supplied slides. Some speakers provided textual corrections but declined to provide copies of their slides
  6. A small number of speakers did not respond to any of the emails sent to them, and as a result the editorial on their sessions has not been reviewed by them

 

Acknowledgments

The EAO would like to gratefully acknowledge the substantial work carried out by Lino Esteve and Alberto Salgado in writing this report. They were supported by Ambrosio Bernabeu, David Esteve, Guillem Esteve, Emilio Sánchez Talaverano, and Andres Valdes.