The first half of your question, regarding the state of Europe in the period after the end of the Western Empire, is fine, but I would remind everyone that "is it possible to have another one in the future with the same causes as the previous one?" violates the Twenty Year Rule, and also the "What If" Rule, so I would ask that you perhaps edit that bit out. Thanks!

This question gets more interesting when you unmoor "middle ages" from "the time between the end of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance" to "the time between any two periodizations of history that can be ascribed as 'antique' and 'modern.' "

I say this because the categorization of time periods as "middle" is usually a result out of an attempt to go further back than the recent past, in order to make a plea toward an older truer authority, one worth valuing, as opposed the recent past, which is denigrated as a "backward" time that our "modern" era improves on.

One of my favorite examples of this is shifting perspectives on architecture. In the time of modernism, brutalism was "futuristic" and the victorian was "barbarian." In our time of the "green" architecture, brutalism is "ugly" and victorian is "quaint." In the renaissance and early modern period, the neo-classical was "harmonious" and the gothic was "barbarian."

You can see parallels in political parties, as some claim themselves as a "fundamentalist return" to an older, truer era, unlike the recent past which is one of degeneracy.

So, to answer your question, are we going to have another middle age in the future? If you're referring to "are we going to have another demise of the western roman empire in 476 CE," then no. But if you're talking about if we're going to have another periodization classified as "middle", then yes.

All you need is to begin categorizing any kind of changes in thought according to the schema above. A modern as "renewal", an antique as "foundational" and a middle as "degenerate."

So as answered previously, the defining characteristic of the Middle Ages was the loss of a centralizing power - the Roman Empire. As it fractured, previously united (somewhat) regions broke off into small pieces that then spent the next five hundred years fighting each other over territorial claims and such, eventually expanding either through marriage or military might and reducing the amount of small territories, settling the region down slightly. During this time, the Catholic church saw and took the opportunity to be an authority and gained significant influence and power. As well, because this time was so fraught with war, most scientific developments were back-burnered unless they had to do with war. So most advancements during this time are military in nature.

So in theory, if we're looking for that type of action, we'd need a world power to conquer numerous countries, dissolve and then watch for the fighting. But due to modern day warfare, media awareness, democracy and other factors, the all out middle ages warfare would likely not happen. The closest comparison to a modern example would be the dissolution of the USSR and the civil wars that followed in its ex-territories. The war-focused development occurs anytime a country is in a war - WWI & WWII were insanely influential on scientific development and invention, so if we wanted more of that we'd just look for longer more drawn-out wars between wealthy countries that can devote the resources.