4.3 Review

Non-carious cervical lesions and occlusion: a systematic review of clinical studies

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 450-462

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02290.x

Keywords

abfraction; tooth wear; dental occlusion; occlusal trauma; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) are a group of lesions that affect the cervical area of the teeth. Different aetiological factors have been reported, among them tooth brushing force, erosive agents and occlusal forces. The aim of this study was to ascertain, by means of a systematic review, the association between NCCLs and occlusion. A search was performed in the MEDLINE database, retrieving a total of 286 articles. After title and abstract screening, the clinical investigations were read in full to select those that evaluated the occlusal aspects of NCCL aetiology. This systematic review describes the results of three prospective and 25 cross-sectional studies. As there is an extreme heterogeneity in design, diagnostic criteria, forms of analysis and associated factors, a meta-analysis was not possible. The wide variety of classification and diagnostic criteria reflects a high range of reported prevalence. An extensive heterogeneity of independent variables was noted, even in occlusal analysis, which helps to mask any conclusion about the role of occlusion in NCCL aetiology. The literature reveals that studies on this topic are subject to a substantial amount of bias, such as evaluation (use of non-blinded examiners) and confounding bias (no control of others aetiological factors). Up to now, it has been impossible to associate NCCLs with any specific causal agent, and the role of occlusion in the pathogenesis of non-carious cervical lesions seems as yet undetermined. Therefore, additional studies, properly designed to diminish bias, are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available