Next Article in Journal
Hyperpolarized Xenon-129: A New Tool to Assess Pulmonary Physiology in Patients with Pulmonary Fibrosis
Previous Article in Journal
Controlled Attenuation Parameter Is Associated with a Distinct Systemic Inflammatory Milieu after Clearance of HCV Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomedicines
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/biomedicines11061530
biomedicines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Conservative Treatment of Dental Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Scoping Review

by
Assunta Patano
†,
Giuseppina Malcangi
†,
Matteo De Santis
,
Roberta Morolla
,
Vito Settanni
,
Fabio Piras
,
Alessio Danilo Inchingolo
,
Antonio Mancini
,
Francesco Inchingolo
*,
Gianna Dipalma
‡ and
Angelo Michele Inchingolo
*,‡
Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70124 Bari, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work as first authors.
‡
These authors contributed equally to this work as last authors.
Biomedicines 2023, 11(6), 1530; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11061530
Submission received: 10 May 2023 / Accepted: 24 May 2023 / Published: 25 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Engineering and Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This scoping review aims to evaluate methods of conservative reconstruction of dental enamel lesions resulting from abrasions and evaluate the effect of diode laser in reducing the symptoms of tooth sensitivity. The cementoenamel junction is more prone to substance loss because the enamel thickness is substantially decreased, resulting in a much weaker enamel–dentin bond. Methods: Dental abrasion was examined in the mechanical cause alone. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to discover publications that matched our topic from 1 January 2018 to 20 March 2023. A comparison of various non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) restoration treatments was generated mostly by mechanical considerations. Results: A final number of 11 clinical trials and randomized controlled trials were included in the review for qualitative analysis. Composite resins performed well in clinical trials for the restoration of NCCLs. Conclusions: Composite, in its different forms of filling and consistency, preceded by the use of adhesives, is an efficient and effective material for the treatment of NCCLs. Diode laser use prior to NCCL restoration of teeth does not diminish restoration retention rate, may lessen hypersensitivity, and may affect restoration success.

1. Introduction

Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) consist of irreversible loss of mineralized tissue unrelated to carious pathology [1,2,3]. Generally, NCCLs are located in the cervical third of the tooth at the level of the cementoenamel junction and tend to extend from the latter toward the tooth root [4]. The cementoenamel junction proves to be more prone to loss of substance because the thickness of the enamel is greatly reduced and, consequently, the enamel–dentin bond is much weaker [5].
Indeed, it has been seen that NCCLs are lesions present at all ages; however, epidemiological studies have pointed out a significant increase in their incidence at older ages [6,7]. Kolak et al. [8] found that in a group of patients older than 55 years, 94.7 percent of them had NCCLs, and one-third of them had more than three lesions.
The increase in life expectancy resulting in an older population requires some attention regarding certain oral health-related variables that may affect quality of life (QoL). Older age is related to an increase in chronic diseases but also dental and oral problems. Specifically, carious pathology and periodontal disease often worsen with advancing age resulting in a compromised masticatory system [9].
Generally, tooth hard-tissue loss could be classified as physiological or pathological. In the former case, tissue loss is a consequence of the chewing action over time and may also be localized to the interproximal level as a result of friction between the tooth elements [10,11].
On the other hand, a large loss of dental tissue is to be considered pathological as it causes progressive destruction of the tooth and may require intervention by a dentist [12,13,14].
NCCLs have a multifactorial etiology and are the consequence of several phenomena that may also occur simultaneously. Causes of NCCLs include abrasion, abfraction, erosion, and attrition [3,15,16] (Figure 1).
Correct identification of their cause allows not only to choose the most appropriate treatment plan, but also to reduce the progression of already formed lesions and place the patient on a prevention plan [17,18,19].
Specifically, abrasion and erosion are responsible for removing the smear layer or intratubular substance through a mechanical or chemical process, respectively [20].
The opening of dentinal tubules will be responsible for the increase of dentinal hypersensitivity at the level of NCCLs [21].
Two-step self-etch adhesives succeed in penetrating different types of smear layers due to the high hydrophilicity of the self-etching primer. In contrast, one-step self-etch adhesives have greater difficulty in penetrating the smear layer and difficulty in forming the hybrid layer with decreased adhesion strength to the dentin [22].

1.1. Dental Abrasion

Abrasion of the tooth surface is a consequence of external abrasive substances rubbing against it [23,24]. Abrasive factors include the use of a hard-bristled toothbrush associated with a vigorous brushing technique and abrasive toothpaste [25].
The distribution of lesions can help the dentist correctly identify risk factors. For example, unilateral localization of lesions at the level of the second quadrant may be associated with an improper brushing technique in a right-handed individual [26,27,28,29].
Abrasion lesions can also localize at the occlusal surfaces of the teeth as a result of an abrasive diet or at the chewing of abrasive materials such as tobacco [26].

1.2. Dental Abfraction

Abfraction consists of the pathological loss of tooth hard tissue as a result of compressive and tensile occlusal loading forces that cause microfractures at the level of the enamel and cervical dentin resulting in the weakening of the tooth structure [30,31,32,33].
Usually, abfraction lesions are located at the cervical level of the tooth on its buccal surface. They present in a wedge or V shape with well-defined margins [34].
This presentation of them makes them very similar to abrasion lesions and, therefore, they are difficult to distinguish from the latter because they are very often simultaneously present and tend to overlap [35].

1.3. Dental Erosion

Tooth surface erosion consists of the dissolution of mineralized tooth tissue as a result of the action of non-bacterial acids [23].
Factors affecting the severity of erosion include the amount and temperature of the acidic substance and the time the acid comes into contact with the hard tissue of the tooth.
The location of erosion lesions changes according to the origin of the acid substance. In this regard, erosion can be classified as exogenous or endogenous. In the case of endogenous erosion, the acid substance comes from the body itself such as gastroesophageal reflux. The latter will cause lesions on the palatal surfaces of the upper front teeth [36]. In the case of exogenous erosion, on the other hand, acidic substances are introduced from outside. In this case, acidic beverages or foods are the major culprits for the erosion of the buccal surfaces of the teeth [37]. Thus, as a result of the constant contact of the acidic substance with the tooth surface, there is a progressive softening of the dental hard tissue with subsequent dissolution and total loss [38].

1.4. Dental Attrition

Attrition wear is the physiological wear caused by opposing teeth contacting each other in the absence of an abrasive substance. The amount of applied load and the duration of load application both contribute to this form of wear [13,23,39]. Non-axial (lateral) loads associated with chronic clenching (parafunction) cause surface flexure in the cervical region that surpasses established enamel failure stresses [40,41].

1.5. Management of NCCLs

The level of severity of NCCLs results in various signs and symptoms that may include a progressive increase in dentinal hypersensitivity, impaired dental aesthetics, and subsequent plaque accumulation in the lesion area [15].
The loss of mineralized tissue resulting from the formation of NCCLs causes the formation of tertiary or reparative dentin, which obstructs the dentinal tubules [18,42,43].
The deposition of such reaction dentin can adversely affect the adhesion of restorative material to the tooth surface [23].
There are many other factors that can compromise the durability of the restoration, including the depth of the lesion, the shape of the cavity, and the restoration performed. Added to this is the position of the NCCL, and, if it turns out to be too cervical, there may be a risk of having an overly moist environment that is difficult to isolate [18,23,42,43].
For these reasons, it has been shown that the treatment and prediction of NCCLs can be difficult [44]. The ability of the chosen material to adhere to the tooth and resist occlusal forces determines the success of the restoration performed [45]. Treatment of NCCLs should be performed when it is an advanced and no longer superficial lesion in which topical hypersensitivity control has failed. It is imperative to intervene when it is difficult for the patient to maintain proper home oral hygiene, which may also be joined by an aesthetic demand on the part of the patient [46].
The purpose of this scoping review is to analyze conservative techniques for treating NCCLs and reducing their sensitivity. Contextually, not only were the restorative materials of NCCLs analyzed and compared, but also the various adhesive systems that can currently allow greater retention of the restoration over time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The current scoping review was carried out in compliance with the standards of the Preferred and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review Registry guidelines (ID: 414639) [47].

2.2. Search Processing

Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to find papers that matched our topic dating from 1 January 2018 up to 20 March 2023. The search method was developed by combining phrases that suited the goal of our review, which deals with the comparison of various restorative techniques of NCCLs.
Hence, the following Boolean variable and keywords were used: “tooth surface loss” OR “tooth wear” OR “dental wear” OR “tooth abrasion” OR “tooth abfraction” OR “non-carious cervical lesions” AND (“therapy” OR “treatment”).

2.3. Inclusion Criteria

The articles were selected using the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies only on human subjects; (2) open access studies; (3) clinical trials and randomized controlled trials; (4) English language and (5) studies concerning the treatment through various techniques of NCCLs.

2.4. Data Processing

Two reviewers (R.M. and M.D.S.) searched the database to extrapolate the studies and assessed their quality independently, according to selection criteria. During the screening phase, we excluded articles that did not fit the topic by reading the manuscript title and the abstract. The full texts of the remaining articles were read to conduct an eligibility analysis, according to the inclusion criteria. The selected articles were downloaded in Zotero (version 6.0.15). Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by consulting a senior reviewer (F.I.).

2.5. PICOS Criteria

Table 1 depicts the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) criteria components, which include population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and research design, as well as their use in this evaluation.

3. Results

From the search of the records on the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, 1006 articles were found, of which 492 duplicates of these records were excluded from the search before the screening.
Hence, 514 items were reviewed, and 484 items were excluded because they were excluded from our Materials and Methods. A total of 30 reports were sought for retrieval and 0 reports were not retrieved. A total of 30 reports were assessed for eligibility and 19 reports were excluded. A final number of 11 studies were included in the review for qualitative analysis (Figure 2) (Table 2).

4. Discussion

It is well recognized that the etiology of NCCL is determined by a variety of variables, including the patient’s risk factor, which varies greatly, altering the therapeutic efficiency of restorative materials [48]. NCCLs are a common clinical manifestation with a complex etiology that increases with age. The absence of macro-mechanical retention and tiny C-factor in these class V cavities minimizes the effect of material features such as polymerization shrinkage, and hence restoration success is mostly dependent on the material’s real bonding capability [53]. The retention of NCCL restorations is closely connected to the restorative system’s adhesion capacity and elasticity modulus [56].

4.1. Analysis of Conservative Methods

In the current investigation, a significant relationship was discovered when clinical characteristics (retention, surface texture) of RMGIC/Flowable composite were compared. The resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGIC) Group retained 93% of their restorations, inside the range of worldwide research. Nevertheless, only 63% of repairs in the Flowable Composite group were retained. The Flowable Composite Group had a marginal adaptation of 70%, whereas the RMGIC Group had a marginal adaptation of 76.6%. Flowable Composite Group was 60% and RMGIC Group was 83%. The Chi-square test revealed a significant connection between retention and both groups [48].
Based on the findings of this randomized controlled clinical trial’s 2 year follow-up, it is possible to conclude that GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal adhesives used in self-etch mode displayed inadequate retention rates at 6, 12, and 24 months. During the 2 years, there were negligible variations in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration between universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse mode and Single Bond2. At the 24 month assessment, the etch-and-rinse and selective-etch application modes of GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal adhesives exhibited acceptable clinical results that were comparable to the evaluated etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond2) [50].
This is the first research to compare the clinical efficacy of a flowable bulk-fill composite to a standard nano-filled composite in the management of NCCLs.
Their findings showed that both composites had acceptable clinical performances, despite minor changes in surface roughness, anatomic shape, and marginal adaptation after 1 year. In a recent study, a bulk-fill restorative composite outperformed a nano-filled normal composite in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation after 24 months in class II restorations.
The difference in elastic modulus between the two composites was ascribed to the findings, which may have produced greater contraction stresses and dislodgment of the nano-filled regular composite from the teeth borders, resulting in gap development and increased sensitivity to marginal staining [52].
Due to their excellent retention rates and simplicity of usage, GICs are the most popular substance. As compared to the baseline, the RMGIC group demonstrated dramatically improved but still tolerable marginal staining after 18 months. Their findings were consistent with previous research that found a rise in margin stain in RMGICs with time. Despite their good retention, RMGICs were shown to have higher water sorption and inferior aesthetic outcomes when compared to resin-based restorative materials. G-Bond (a mild one-step self-etch adhesive), on the other hand, exhibited no significant rise in marginal staining during an 18 month period. As it is HEMA-free, it is said to have less water sorption and hydrolytic deterioration over time. There was no postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries detected in any of the groups studied. This is thought to be due to the adhesives’ capacity to seal the dentinal tubules and minimize microleakage. In the repair of NCCLs, a moderate one-step self-etch adhesive followed by a resin composite restoration might be an alternative to RMGIC with comparable retention and enhanced aesthetics [53].
According to Luhrs et al. [54] the loss rate for restorations implanted without any dentin preparation was 7.7 years. Roughening the dentin surface and/or preparing a fine groove improved the long-term survival of restorations put in NCCLs and can be incorporated in the clinical treatment strategy for NCCLs. Due to the absence of mechanical retention, the clinical effectiveness of cervical restorations is mostly dependent on their adherence to the tooth structure. In this indication, one-step self-etch adhesives had a lower “clinical score” than two-step self-etch or three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives [54].
In their study, Luhrs et al. used the Syntac Classic adhesive in selective enamel etching mode (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) in conjunction with the system-inherent self-etching primer. In NCCLs, this three-step adhesive (Syntac Classic) combined with selective enamel etching had the lowest yearly failure rate in a follow-up period of 13 years and is considered to be a reliable unfilled system [54].
Dentists offer a variety of restorative alternatives, with traditional RC being the most frequent, owing to its demonstrated lifespan and great aesthetics. Glass ionomers have also been advocated for this indication, owing to their less technically demanding use (e.g., moisture management) and the fact that these materials may be placed in a self-adhesive and bulk way. According to the study of Falk Schwendicke et al., in which they evaluated GH and RC for repairing NCCLs, the survival was not considerably different between GH and RC to repair sclerotic NCCLs. While GH was much less expensive both initially and over time than RC, utilizing RC was only cost-effective for payers prepared to incur higher expenditures for marginal survival increases [55].
The chemical interaction with the tooth structure is critical for the quality and stability of adhesion when healing these lesions. Due to their chemical interactions with the dentin substrates present in NCCL, glass-ionomer compounds improved retentive stability.
A comprehensive review and meta-analysis discovered that glass-ionomer restorations outperformed resin composite restorations in terms of retention [59]; however, other metrics revealed no significant difference. In their study, the group that did not achieve selective enamel conditioning had the highest initial debonding rates and the lowest 3 year cumulative survival (89%). The RMGIC group had a cumulative survival retention rate of 98%. Eighteen months following the operations, EDTA conditioning enhances self-etching adhesive repair retention rates. A dose of 0.1 M EDTA might be used as an alternate pretreatment for NCCL repair.
As compared to other pretreatment options for restorations using glass-ionomer cement, EDTA achieved reduced microleakage in primary teeth, constituting an alternative to improve chemical and micromechanical adherence of this material to the dental tissue [58].
At the end of the 24 month evaluation period, the whole clinical performance of the tested GH and nano-ceramic RBC restorative systems was equal for retention, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and tooth vitality, with the nano-ceramic RBC system showing significantly better marginal adaptation.
Throughout the course of the investigation, a substantial shift in marginal discoloration was noted in both of the tested materials. Although the nano-ceramic RBC showed superior marginal adaptation than GH, both the evaluated GH restorative system and the present nano-ceramic RBC demonstrated a clinically acceptable performance for the restoration of NCCLs in bruxism patients [56].
Sensitivity is frequently found in NCCLs. Due to the obliteration of the dentin tubes by the adhesive and restoration, patients have reported diminished or resolved sensitivity following the restorative operation.
After 24 months of follow-up, just two teeth in each procedure (from the same individuals) still showed a degree of sensitivity as compared to the baseline condition, leading us to conclude that sensitivity may be inherited by patients.
The semi-direct approach had no benefit over the standard direct method and was more time-demanding [49].
The efficacy of diode lasers on pain induced by DH in NCCLs was analyzed by comparing three alternative laser therapy protocols: high and low power were employed independently vs a hybrid technique employing first the low- and then the high-power laser.
When the bio-stimulation impact of the delayed effect of the low-power laser on DH-associated reducing pain is combined with the quick pain control action of the high-power laser on external sealing, the optimal patient outcome is attained.
They suggest an innovative laser therapy strategy that integrates two distinct diode laser output intensities to treat DH when its symptoms are triggered in the presence of NCCL to achieve more lasting pain control [57].

4.2. Effect of Diode Laser Application

Diode laser use prior to NCCL restoration of teeth does not diminish restoration retention rate, may lessen hypersensitivity, and may affect restoration success. This in vivo investigation found that groups who received a diode laser before restoration had poorer sensitivity than those that did not receive a laser before restoration [57].

5. Conclusions

Dental abrasions cause sensitivity to the patient; therefore, the ideal procedure is to treat them by reconstructing the lost tooth substance. The use of the diode laser as a desensitizing pre-treatment combined with the use of composite in its different forms of filling and consistency preceded by the use of adhesives make this material efficient and effective for the treatment of NCCLs. Therefore, composites are long-lasting materials for NCCL restoration. Further improvements in the properties of these materials will increasingly improve the loss rate of reconstructions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P., G.M., R.M. and M.D.S.; Methodology F.P., V.S., A.M. and G.D.; Software, A.M.I., A.D.I. and M.D.S.; Validation, A.P., G.M., G.D. and F.I.; Formal analysis, A.M.I., A.D.I. and G.D.; Resources, F.P., V.S. and A.M.; Data curation, R.M., M.D.S. and F.I.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.P., G.M. and R.M. Writing—review and editing, A.P., A.M. and G.D.; Visualization, G.M., F.P. and V.S.; Supervision, F.I., A.D.I. and A.M.I.; Project administration, A.M.I., F.I. and G.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

DHdentin hypersensitivity
ECenamel conditioning
EDTAethylenediaminetetraacetic acid pretreatment
GHglass hybrid
NCCLnon-carious cervical lesion
NCCLsnon-carious cervical lesions
NRNew restoration
RBCnano-ceramic composite resin
RCcomposite restoration
RMGICglass ionomer cement control repair
RMGICResin-modified glass-ionomer cements
SBUSingle bond universal/Filtek Z350xt

References

  1. Walter, C.; Kress, E.; Götz, H.; Taylor, K.; Willershausen, I.; Zampelis, A. The anatomy of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014, 18, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, F.; Charitos, I.A.; Cosola, M.D.; Cazzolla, A.P. Focus on the cariogenic process: Microbial and biochemical interactions with teeth and oral environment. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2021, 35, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Osborne-Smith, K.L.; Burke, F.J.; Wilson, N.H. The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int. Dent. J. 1999, 49, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Goodacre, C.J.; Eugene Roberts, W.; Munoz, C.A. Noncarious cervical lesions: Morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. J. Prosthodont. 2023, 32, e1–e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Levitch, L.C.; Bader, J.D.; Shugars, D.A.; Heymann, H.O. Non-carious cervical lesions. J. Dent. 1994, 22, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Borcic, J.; Anic, I.; Urek, M.M.; Ferreri, S. The prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions in permanent dentition. J. Oral Rehabil. 2004, 31, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, J.; Cai, D.; Wang, F.; He, D.; Ma, L.; Jin, Y.; Que, K. Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in a random sampling community population and the association of NCCLs with occlusive wear. J. Oral Rehabil. 2016, 43, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kolak, V.; Pešić, D.; Melih, I.; Lalović, M.; Nikitović, A.; Jakovljević, A. Epidemiological investigation of non-carious cervical lesions and possible etiological factors. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2018, 10, e648–e656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Skośkiewicz-Malinowska, K.; Noack, B.; Kaderali, L.; Malicka, B.; Lorenz, K.; Walczak, K.; Weber, M.-T.; Mendak-Ziółko, M.; Hoffmann, T.; Ziętek, M.; et al. Oral Health and Quality of Life in Old Age: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Project in Germany and Poland. Adv. Clin. Exp. 2016, 25, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kaidonis, J.A. Tooth wear: The view of the anthropologist. Clin. Oral Investig. 2008, 12, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Davies, S.J.; Gray, R.J.M.; Qualtrough, A.J.E. Management of tooth surface loss. Br. Dent. J. 2002, 192, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bartlett, D.W.; Fares, J.; Shirodaria, S.; Chiu, K.; Ahmad, N.; Sherriff, M. The association of tooth wear, diet and dietary habits in adults aged 18-30 years old. J. Dent. 2011, 39, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Marinelli, G.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Malcangi, G.; Limongelli, L.; Montenegro, V.; Coloccia, G.; Laudadio, C.; Patano, A.; Inchingolo, F.; et al. White spot lesions in orthodontics: Prevention and treatment. A descriptive review. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2021, 35, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Van’t Spijker, A.; Rodriguez, J.M.; Kreulen, C.M.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Bartlett, D.W.; Creugers, N.H.J. Prevalence of tooth wear in adults. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2009, 22, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pecie, R.; Krejci, I.; García-Godoy, F.; Bortolotto, T. Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL)—A clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: Restoration. Am. J. Dent. 2011, 24, 183–192. [Google Scholar]
  16. Santacroce, L.; Charitos, I.A.; Ballini, A.; Inchingolo, F.; Luperto, P.; De Nitto, E.; Topi, S. The Human Respiratory System and its Microbiome at a Glimpse. Biology 2020, 9, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wood, I.; Jawad, Z.; Paisley, C.; Brunton, P. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: A literature review. J. Dent. 2008, 36, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Michael, J.A.; Kaidonis, J.A.; Townsend, G.C. Non-carious cervical lesions: A scanning electron microscopic study. Aust. Dent. J. 2010, 55, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yılmaz, N.; Baygin, O.; Tüzüner, T.; Turgut, S.N.; Erbek, Ş.M. Evaluation of the effect of pediatric drugs and an oral rinse on primary teeth discoloration. Dent. Med. Probl. 2022, 59, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dababneh, R.H.; Khouri, A.T.; Addy, M. Dentine hypersensitivity-an enigma? A review of terminology, mechanisms, aetiology and management. Br. Dent. J. 1999, 187, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Addy, M.; Hunter, M.L. Can tooth brushing damage your health? Effects on oral and dental tissues. Int. Dent. J. 2003, 53 (Suppl. S3), 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Takamizawa, T.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Sai, K.; Tsujimoto, A.; Imai, A.; Erickson, R.L.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Influence of different smear layers on bond durability of self-etch adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Addy, M.; Shellis, R.P. Interaction between attrition, abrasion and erosion in tooth wear. Monogr. Oral Sci. 2006, 20, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Casu, C.; Mosaico, G.; Natoli, V.; Scarano, A.; Lorusso, F.; Inchingolo, F. Microbiota of the Tongue and Systemic Connections: The Examination of the Tongue as an Integrated Approach in Oral Medicine. Hygiene 2021, 1, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Litonjua, L.A.; Andreana, S.; Cohen, R.E. Toothbrush abrasions and noncarious cervical lesions: Evolving concepts. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. (Jamesburg NJ 1995) 2005, 26, 767–768, 770–774, 776 passim. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bergström, J.; Lavstedt, S. An epidemiologic approach to toothbrushing and dental abrasion. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1979, 7, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jiang, H.; Du, M.Q.; Huang, W.; Peng, B.; Bian, Z.; Tai, B.J. The prevalence of and risk factors for non-carious cervical lesions in adults in Hubei Province, China. Community Dent. Health 2011, 28, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rapone, B.; Ferrara, E.; Santacroce, L.; Topi, S.; Gnoni, A.; Dipalma, G.; Mancini, A.; Di Domenico, M.; Tartaglia, G.M.; Scarano, A.; et al. The Gaseous Ozone Therapy as a Promising Antiseptic Adjuvant of Periodontal Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Inchingolo, A.D.; Malcangi, G.; Semjonova, A.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Patano, A.; Coloccia, G.; Ceci, S.; Marinelli, G.; Di Pede, C.; Ciocia, A.M.; et al. Oralbiotica/Oralbiotics: The Impact of Oral Microbiota on Dental Health and Demineralization: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Children 2022, 9, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rees, J.S. The biomechanics of abfraction. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2006, 220, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chu, F.C.S.; Yip, H.K.; Newsome, P.R.H.; Chow, T.W.; Smales, R.J. Restorative management of the worn dentition: I. Aetiology and diagnosis. Dent. Update 2002, 29, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Malcangi, G.; Avantario, P.; Azzollini, D.; Buongiorno, S.; Viapiano, F.; Campanelli, M.; Ciocia, A.M.; De Leonardis, N.; et al. Effects of Resveratrol, Curcumin and Quercetin Supplementation on Bone Metabolism-A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lee, H.E.; Lin, C.L.; Wang, C.H.; Cheng, C.H.; Chang, C.H. Stresses at the cervical lesion of maxillary premolar--a finite element investigation. J. Dent. 2002, 30, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rees, J.S.; Hammadeh, M.; Jagger, D.C. Abfraction lesion formation in maxillary incisors, canines and premolars: A finite element study. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2003, 111, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bernhardt, O.; Gesch, D.; Schwahn, C.; Mack, F.; Meyer, G.; John, U.; Kocher, T. Epidemiological evaluation of the multifactorial aetiology of abfractions. J. Oral Rehabil. 2006, 33, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. West, N.X.; Hughes, J.A.; Addy, M. Erosion of dentine and enamel in vitro by dietary acids: The effect of temperature, acid character, concentration and exposure time. J. Oral Rehabil. 2000, 27, 875–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Johansson, A.-K.; Lingström, P.; Imfeld, T.; Birkhed, D. Influence of drinking method on tooth-surface pH in relation to dental erosion. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2004, 112, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barbour, M.E.; Rees, G.D. The role of erosion, abrasion and attrition in tooth wear. J. Clin. Dent. 2006, 17, 88–93. [Google Scholar]
  39. Asadian, F.; Hoseini, A.P.; Ahmadian, L.; Rafeie, N.; Rezaei, S.; Moradi, Z. In vitro attrition wear resistance of four types of paste-like bulk-fill composite resins. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Roberts, W.E.; Mangum, J.E.; Schneider, P.M. Pathophysiology of Demineralization, Part I: Attrition, Erosion, Abfraction, and Noncarious Cervical Lesions. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2022, 20, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rees, J.S. The effect of variation in occlusal loading on the development of abfraction lesions: A finite element study. J. Oral Rehabil. 2002, 29, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Salem, M.N.; Hafez, S. Aesthetic Management of Erosive Tooth Wear in a Young Egyptian Swimmer: A Case Report. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2021, 13, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lussi, A.; Carvalho, T.S. Erosive tooth wear: A multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge. Monogr. Oral Sci. 2014, 25, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Heintze, S.D.; Ruffieux, C.; Rousson, V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations—A meta-analysis. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Santos, M.J.M.C.; Ari, N.; Steele, S.; Costella, J.; Banting, D. Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions--a systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014, 18, 1369–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Peumans, M.; Politano, G.; Van Meerbeek, B. Treatment of noncarious cervical lesions: When, why, and how. Int. J. Esthet. Dent. 2020, 15, 16–42. [Google Scholar]
  47. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Saghir, A.; Rehman, T.; Irum, B.; Afreen, Z.; Ammarah; Nawaz, F.N. 12 Month’s Assessment Of Clinical Efficacy Of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Flowable Composites In Restoration Of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions, A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Ayub Med. Coll. Abbottabad 2023, 35, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Caneppele, T.M.F.; Meirelles, L.C.F.; Rocha, R.S.; Gonçalves, L.L.; Ávila, D.M.S.; Gonçalves, S.E.d.P.; Bresciani, E. A 2-year clinical evaluation of direct and semi-direct resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 1321–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oz, F.D.; Ergin, E.; Canatan, S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL—A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2019, 27, e20180358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Reddy, S.; Mandadi, L.R.; Mala, K.; Abhinav, T.N.; Dave, A.; Thomas, M.S. Clinical Effectiveness of Composite Resin Bonded with Universal Adhesive for the Restoration of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Using Air Abrasion: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Arch. Orofac. Sci. 2022, 17, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Canali, G.D.; Ignácio, S.A.; Rached, R.N.; Souza, E.M. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jassal, M.; Mittal, S.; Tewari, S. Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lührs, A.; Jacker-Guhr, S.; Günay, H.; Herrmann, P. Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions—Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable? Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2020, 6, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Schwendicke, F.; Müller, A.; Seifert, T.; Jeggle-Engbert, L.-M.; Paris, S.; Göstemeyer, G. Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesions: Survival, restoration quality and costs in randomized controlled trial after 3 years. J. Dent. 2021, 110, 103689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koc Vural, U.; Meral, E.; Ergin, E.; Gürgan, S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: A split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 1229–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Akarsu, S.; Karademir, S.A.; Ertas, E.; Atasoy, S. The Effect of Diode Laser Application on Restoration of Non Carious Cervical Lesion: Clinical Follow Up. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2020, 23, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gonçalves, D.F.M.; Shinohara, M.S.; de Andrade Carvalho, P.R.M.; Ramos, F.D.S.; Oliveira, L.D.C.; Omoto, É.M.; Fagundes, T.C. Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: A randomized clinical trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2021, 29, e20210192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Beerens, M.W.; Ten Cate, J.M.; Buijs, M.J.; van der Veen, M.H. Long-term remineralizing effect of MI Paste Plus on regression of early caries after orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: A 12-month follow-up randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Orthod. 2018, 40, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomedicines 11 01530 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram of the causes of tooth tissue loss.
Figure 1. Diagram of the causes of tooth tissue loss.
Biomedicines 11 01530 g001
Biomedicines 11 01530 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart diagram of the inclusion process. Literature search Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart diagram of the inclusion process. Literature search Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Biomedicines 11 01530 g002
Table
Table 1. PICOS Criteria.
Table 1. PICOS Criteria.
CriteriaApplication in the Present Study
PopulationSubjects with NCCLs
InterventionConservative treatments of NCCLs
ComparisonsComparing before and post intervention
OutcomesImprovements as a result of the techniques used
Study designClinical Trial
Table
Table 2. Descriptive summary of item selection.
Table 2. Descriptive summary of item selection.
AuthorsType of StudyObjectStudy Design and TimelineType of Initial Restoration Placement or Repair of Existing RestorationsLesions Sensitive or Not before RestorationConditioning Protocol Used for the SurfaceMechanical Preparation of the SurfaceResults
Atikah Saghir et al. [48]Randomized Clinical TrialComparison of the clinical efficacy of resin-modified glass ionomer and flowable composite in the treatment of NCCLs.60 patients with at least 2 NCCLs divided into 2 groups: (1) treatment with flowable composite; (2) treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer cement.Placement of new restoration in NCCLs with depth of 1–2 mmNot specifiedTooth etching with 37% phosphoric acidNot specifiedNCCLs treated with Resin modified glass ionomer cement is superior to flowable composite in terms of retention and surface texture.
Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele et al. [49]Randomized Clinical StudyTo assess the effectiveness of resin composite restorations in NCCLs after 2 years utilizing direct or semi-direct techniques.30 volunteers with at least 2 NCCLs. Each participant received one restoration with direct technique and one with indirect technique. Follow-up: baseline, 7 days, 6, 12 and 24 months.New restorations have been madeNot specifiedThe surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid gelNo tooth preparation was performed.The tested restorative methods produce comparable effects for NCCLs during the study periods.
Fatma Dilsad OZ et al. [50]Randomized Clinical TrialTo assess the effectiveness of two distinct universal adhesives and one etch-rinse glue for NCCL restoration.20 patients with at least 7 NCCLs divided into 7 groups according to adhesive systems and application modes. Follow-up: 1 week, 6, 12 and 24 months. New restorations of NCCLs have been madePatients who rated their hypersensitivity with a maximum value of 7 on a scale of 0 to 10Phosphoric acid etching gel (37%) was applied to enamel for 30s then rinsed and driedNot specifiedIn terms of retention, GLUMA Universal and All- Bond Universal outperformed the self-etch mode in etch-and-rinse and selective etching modes.
Shanthana Reddy et al. [51]Randomized Controlled trialTo assess the clinical efficacy of nanocomposite restorations for NCCLs bonded with universal adhesive in self-etch mode with and without air abrasive surface treatment.70 NCCLs divided into 2 groups: (1) surface treatment with alumina air abrasion; (2) control group. NCCLs were restored with nanocomposite using universal bonding (self-etch mode). Follow-up: baseline, 3, 6, 12 months.Teeth with cervical carious lesions and previously restored teeth.Pre-operative sensistivity with Schiff’s scale: = (no response); 1 (mild response), 2 (moderate response); 3 (severe response)Not specifiedLesion cleaned using pumice slurry The clinical efficacy of nanocomposite resin bonded with universal adhesive was not improved by airborne particle abrasion of NCCLs.
Gabriela D. Canali et al. [52]Randomized trialTo assess the efficacy of a bulk-fill flowable and a regular nanofilled composite in NCCLs after one year.22 patients with at least 2 NCCLs. A universal adhesive was used with a self-etching approach in dentin. Follow-up: baseline (7 days), 6 months and 1 year.New restorations of lesionsNot specified32% phosphoric acid for 15 s on enamelEnamel margins beveled with a diamond bur at high speedAfter one year, both composite resins demonstrated acceptable clinical efficacy in the restoration of NCCLs.
M. Jassal et al. [53]Randomized Clinical TrialTo compare the clinical efficacy of two techniques of applying a moderate one-step self-etch adhesive and composite resin in NCCLs with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement control repair (RMGIC).294 restorations in 56 patients divided into 3 groups: (1) G-Bond active application combined with Solare-X composite resin; (2) G-Bond passive application combined with Solare-X composite resin; (3) GC II LC RMGIC. Follow-up: 6, 12 and 18 months.New restorations of lesions ≥ 1 mm 18 of 294 NCCLs had preoperative sensitivityDentin conditioner for 10 s before RMGICLesions were cleaned using rubber cup with pumice. No additional bevelIn the repair of NCCLs, a mild one-step self-etch adhesive followed by a resin composite restoration might be an alternative to RMGIC with comparable retention and enhanced aesthetics.
Anne-Katrin Lührs et al. [54] Randomized Clinical TrialTo assess the clinical performance of restorations placed in NCCLs using different cavity preparation strategies.85 NCCLs were treated with different cavity preparations and subsequent restoration.New restorations of NCCLs have been madeNot specifiedSelective enamel etching for 30 s with 36% phosphoric acid gelIn group 2 and 3 dentin surface is bevelled with round bur Composites are long-lasting materials for NCCL restoration. Restorations that were put without any dentin preparation (just cavity cleaning) had the greatest loss rate.
Falk Schwendicke et al. [55]Randomized Clinical TrialTo evaluate the survivability, restoration quality, and costs of glass hybrid and resin restorations on sclerotic NCCLs.88 patients with 175 NCCLs were were randomized to receive glass hybrid (GH) or composite restorations (RC). New restorations have been madeNot specifiedFor RC etching with 37% phosphoric acid gelSurfaces cleaned using a polishing brush. No mechanical preparationThere was no significant difference between GH and RC in the survival and quality of NCCLs restorations. In addition, GH was found to be less expensive than RC.
Uzay Koc Vural et al. [56]Randomized Clinical TrialTo compare the clinical efficacy of a glass hybrid restorative to that of a nano-ceramic composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxism patients.A total of 148 NCCLs were restored in a random order using either a glass hybrid (GH) restorative system or a nano-ceramic composite resin (RBC). Follow-up: at baseline, six, twelve, and twenty-four months later.New restorations61 of 148 NCCLs had preoperative sensitivityRBC restorations was etched for 15 s with 37% phosphoric acid gelNot specifiedAfter 24 months both evaluated restoratives demonstrated clinically acceptable performance for the restoration of NCCLs in bruxism patients.
S Akarsu et al. [57]Clinical TrialTo assess the impact of the diode laser used for DH on the clinical success of NCCLs repaired with various adhesive solutions.20 NCCLs were restored with Universal Single Bond and Grandio after diode laser application, and 20 NCCLs were restored with Universal Single Bond (Total Etch) and Grandio. Follow-up: baseline, 6, and 18 months.New restorationsNCCLs with tolarable sensitivity Group 1: self-etch; Group 2: etch-and-rinse; Group 3: diode laser + self-etch; Group 4: diode laser + etch-and-rinseNo preparation on dentin or enamel. Diode laser use prior to NCCL restoration of teeth does not reduce restoration retention rate, may decrease DH, and may affect restoration success.
Diego Felipe Mardegan GONÇALVES et al. [58]Randomized Clinical TrialTo assess NCCLs restored with different adhesion techniques.200 NCCLs were restored with Universal Single Bond with and without enamel conditioning; resin-modified glass-ionomer cements with EDTA. Follow-up: baseline and 3 years after.New restorationsVisual analogue scale (VAS) was used to score pain: 1 (no pain); 2 (mild); 3 (moderate); 4 (slightly worse); 5 (much worse); 6 (severe pain)Single Bond Universal was assessed both with or without enamel conditioningNo cavity preparationNCCL restoration retention was impacted by selective enamel etching. The EDTA-based adhesive approach followed by RMGIC postponed marginal flaws over time.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patano, A.; Malcangi, G.; De Santis, M.; Morolla, R.; Settanni, V.; Piras, F.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Mancini, A.; Inchingolo, F.; Dipalma, G.; et al. Conservative Treatment of Dental Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Scoping Review. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11061530

AMA Style

Patano A, Malcangi G, De Santis M, Morolla R, Settanni V, Piras F, Inchingolo AD, Mancini A, Inchingolo F, Dipalma G, et al. Conservative Treatment of Dental Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Scoping Review. Biomedicines. 2023; 11(6):1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11061530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patano, Assunta, Giuseppina Malcangi, Matteo De Santis, Roberta Morolla, Vito Settanni, Fabio Piras, Alessio Danilo Inchingolo, Antonio Mancini, Francesco Inchingolo, Gianna Dipalma, and et al. 2023. "Conservative Treatment of Dental Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Scoping Review" Biomedicines 11, no. 6: 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11061530

APA Style

Patano, A., Malcangi, G., De Santis, M., Morolla, R., Settanni, V., Piras, F., Inchingolo, A. D., Mancini, A., Inchingolo, F., Dipalma, G., & Inchingolo, A. M. (2023). Conservative Treatment of Dental Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Scoping Review. Biomedicines, 11(6), 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11061530

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop