World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Prevalence and Clinical Parameters of Cervical Abrasion as a Function of Population, Age, Gender, and Toothbrushing Habits: A Systematic Review

TA Abdul Salam, Rekha P Shenoy

Keywords : Dental diseases, Prophylaxis, Systematic review, Tooth abrasion, Tooth wear

Citation Information : Salam TA, Shenoy RP. Prevalence and Clinical Parameters of Cervical Abrasion as a Function of Population, Age, Gender, and Toothbrushing Habits: A Systematic Review. World J Dent 2019; 10 (6):470-480.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1685

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: To determine specific differences in prevalence and etiology of cervical abrasion (CA) related to age, gender, and population and to recommend optimal management protocols. Background: Cervical abrasion is a part of a spectrum of regressive changes in teeth called noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). These are physiological or pathological alterations as a function of time, related to physical and/or chemical factors. There are multiple variables involved in the pathogenesis and management of these lesions. There may be age-, gender-, and population-based differences in prevalence and clinical parameters of CA. Results: Our review selected 24 studies from an initial 3,876 titles. We found significant differences in prevalence of CA in relation to age, toothbrushing frequency, brush type, and brushing technique. There were definite conclusion regarding type of teeth affected and appropriate management to enhance quality of life of the patients. Data on CA are inconsistent and need standardization. Conclusion: Cervical abrasion varies in prevalence across countries. However, it exhibits definite age-related increase. There is no gender predilection. The frequency of toothbrushing, type of brush, brushing technique, and use of dentifrice influences the prevalence. Certain teeth are more susceptible to abrasion than others. Resin-modified glass ionomers were reported to be better for treating this condition. Clinical significance: There is no standardized methodology to diagnose the presence and clinical severity of dental abrasion. This affects data on prevalence, habits, and management. Standardized protocol and tools may be developed for the same, and would improve outcomes particularly in vulnerable groups like geriatric populations, which are mainly affected by this condition.

PDF Share
  1. Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA. Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of noncarious cervical lesions: a 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24(1):10–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00487.x.
  2. Grippo JO. Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 1991;3(1):14–19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00799.x.
  3. Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, et al. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent 2008;36(10):759–766. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.004.
  4. Heasman PA, Holliday R, Bryant A, et al. Evidence for the occurrence of gingival recession and non-carious cervical lesions as a consequence of traumatic toothbrushing. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42(Suppl 16):S237–S255. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12330.
  5. Bartlett DW, Shah P. A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion, and abrasion. J Dent Res 2006;85(4):306–312. DOI: 10.1177/154405910608500405.
  6. Hand JS, Hunt RJ, Reinhardt JW. The prevalence and treatment implications of cervical abrasion in the elderly. Gerodontics 1986;2(5):167–170.
  7. Borcic J, Anic I, Urek MM, et al. The prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions in permanent dentition. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(2):117–123. DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182X.2003.01223.x.
  8. Sangnes G, Gjermo P. Prevalence of oral soft and hard tissue lesions related to mechanical toothcleansing procedures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1976;4(2):77–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1976.tb01607.x.
  9. Kumar S, Kumar A, Debnath N, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for non-carious cervical lesions in children attending special needs schools in India. J Oral Sci 2015;57(1):37–43. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.57.37.
  10. Que K, Guo B, Jia Z, et al. A cross-sectional study: non-carious cervical lesions, cervical dentine hypersensitivity and related risk factors. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40(1):24–32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02342.x.
  11. Radentz WH, Barnes GP, Cutright DE. A survey of factors possibly associated with cervical abrasion of tooth surfaces. J Periodontol 1976;47(3):148–154. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1976.47.3.148.
  12. Piotrowski BT, Gillette WB, Hancock EB. Examining the prevalence and characteristics of abfractionlike cervical lesions in a population of U.S. veterans. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132(12):1694–1701. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0122.
  13. Bergström J, Eliasson S. Cervical abrasion in relation to toothbrushing and periodontal health. Scand J Dent Res 1988;96(5):405–411. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1988.tb01575.x.
  14. Bergström J, Lavstedt S. An Epidemiologic Approach To Toothbrushing And Dental Abrasion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1979;7(1): 57–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1979.tb01186.x.
  15. Pegoraro LF, Scolaro JM, Conti PC, et al. Noncarious cervical lesions in adults: prevalence and occlusal aspects. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(12):1694–1700. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0113.
  16. Telles D, Pegoraro LF, Pereira JC. Prevalence of noncarious cervical lesions and their relation to occlusal aspects: a clinical study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2000;12(1):10–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00193.x.
  17. Faye B, Sarr M, Kane AW, et al. Prevalence and etiologic factors of non-carious cervical lesions. A study in a Senegalese population. Odontostomatol Trop 2005;28(112):15–18.
  18. Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, et al. Characteristics of noncarious cervical lesions: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133(6):725–733. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0268.
  19. Brandini DA, De Sousa AL, Trevisan CL, et al. Noncarious cervical lesions and their association with toothbrushing practices: in vivo evaluation. Oper Dent 2011;36(6):581–589. DOI: 10.2341/10-152-S.
  20. Bader JD, Mcclure F, Scurria MS, et al. Case-control study of non-carious cervical lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996;24(4):286–291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1996.tb00861.x.
  21. Bomfim RA, Crosato E, Mazzilli LE, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of non-carious cervical lesions related to occupational exposure to acid mists. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:S1806-83242015000100280. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0085.
  22. Marinescu IR, Popescu SM, Răghici EC, et al. Etiological aspects of noncarious dental lesions. Curr Health Sci J 2017;43(1):54–61. DOI: 10.12865/CHSJ.43.01.08.
  23. Ahmed H, Rahman M. Factors associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2009;19(5):279–282. DOI: 05.2009/JCPSP.279282.
  24. Akgül HM, Akgül N, Karaoglanoglu S, et al. A survey of the correspondence between abrasions and tooth brushing habits in Erzurum, Turkey. Int Dent J 2003;53(6):491–495. DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-595X.2003.tb00892.x.
  25. Oginni A, Olusile A, Udoye C. Non-carious cervical lesions in a Nigerian population: abrasion or abfraction? Int Dent J 2003;53(5):275–279. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2003.tb00759.x.
  26. Sadaf D, Ahmad Z. Role of brushing and occlusal forces in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL). Int J Biomed Sci 2014;10(4):265–268.
  27. Zhang J, Du Y, Wei Z, et al. The prevalence and risk indicators of tooth wear in 12-and 15-year-old adolescents in Central China. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(1):120. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0104-9.
  28. Zi Yun L, Qing Hui Z, Yan Z, et al. Prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions and associated risk indicators in middle-aged and elderly populations in Southern China. Chin J Dent Res 2015;18(1):41–50.
  29. Bernhardt O, Gesch D, Schwahn C, et al. Epidemiological evaluation of the multifactorial aetiology of abfractions. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(1):17–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01532.x.
  30. López-Frías FJ, Castellanos-Cosano L, Martín-González J, et al. Clinical measurement of tooth wear: tooth wear indices. J Clin Exp Dent 2012;4(1):e48–e53. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50592.
  31. Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, et al. Tooth wear: attrition, erosion, and abrasion. Quintessence Int 2003;34(6):435–446.
  32. Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, et al. Noncarious cervical lesions and abfractions: a re-evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(7):845–850. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0282.
  33. Bizhang M, Riemer K, Arnold WH, et al. Influence of bristle stiffness of manual toothbrushes on eroded and sound human dentin – an in vitro study. PLoS One 2016;11(4):e0153250. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153250.
  34. Freitas SdS, Sousa LL, Moita Neto JM, et al. Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:45. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0045.
  35. Schroeder M, Reis A, Luque-Martinez I, et al. Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43(7):777–788. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.017.
  36. Boing TF, de Geus JL, Wambier LM, et al. Are glass-ionomer cement restorations in cervical lesions more long-lasting than resin-based composite resins? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2018;20(5):435–452. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a41310.
  37. Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. A clinical trial comparing two all-in-one adhesive systems used to restore non-carious cervical lesions: results at one year. Aust Dent J 2008;53(3):235–238. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00054.x.
  38. Santiago SL, Passos VF, Vieira AH, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Braz Dent J 2010;21(3):229–234. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402010000300010.
  39. Adeleke AA, Oginni AO. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. J West Afr Coll Surg 2012;2(4):21–37.
  40. Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, et al. A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(4):507–514. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0204.
  41. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, et al. Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2018;69: 60–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.011.
  42. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, et al. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 2015;43(10):1229–1234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009.
  43. Bekes K, Boeckler L, Gernhardt CR, et al. Clinical performance of a self-etching and a total-etch adhesive system: 2-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34(11):855–861. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01745.x.
  44. Ermis RB, Van Landuyt KL, Cardoso MV, et al. Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(3):889–897. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0565-4.
  45. Tuncer D, Yazici AR, Özgünaltay G, et al. Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. Aust Dent J 2013;58(1):94–100. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12028.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.