4.3 Article

Epidemiological evaluation of the multifactorial aetiology of abfractions

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 17-25

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01532.x

Keywords

abfraction; non-carious cervical defect; wedge-shaped defect; toothbrushing; epidemiology; cross-sectional

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to determine risk indicators for the aetiology of abfractions (cervical wedge-shaped defects) on teeth using dental and medical variables obtained in a population-based sample of the cross-sectional epidemiological 'Study of Health in Pomerania' (SHIP). Medical history, dental, and sociodemographic parameters of 2707 representatively selected subjects 20-59 years of age with more than four natural teeth were checked for associations with the occurrence of abfractions using a two-level logistic regression model on a tooth and a subject level. The estimated prevalence of developing abfractions generally increased with age. The following independent variables were associated with the occurrence of abfractions: buccal recession of the gingiva, odds ratio (OR) = 6.7; occlusal wear facets of scores 1, 2 and 3, OR = 1.5, 1.9, 1.9; tilted teeth, OR = 1.4; inlays, OR = 1.6; toothbrushing behaviour, OR = 1.9 to 2.0 (two and three times a day versus once a day). First premolars had the highest estimated risk for developing abfractions, followed by the second premolars. Maxillary and mandibular teeth behaved similarly in terms of abfractions, with the exception of mandibular canines, which had a much lower estimated risk of incurring abfractions than did maxillary canines. The results of this analysis indicated that abfractions are associated with occlusal factors, like occlusal wear, inlay restorations, altered tooth position and tooth brushing behaviour. This study delivers further evidence for a multifactorial aetiology of abfractions.

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