2019PubMedRequires access

Questionnaire Survey on the Management of Erosive Tooth Wear.

Philipp Kanzow, Jana Biermann, Annette Wiegand

Open publisher page 14 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: This questionnaire survey aimed to analyse management strategies for erosive tooth wear and to identify factors influencing dentists' decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire presenting clinical cases with erosive tooth wear on anterior and posterior teeth (BEWE scores 1 to 3) was sent electronically to German dentists (n = 13.683). Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Kruskal-Wallis-tests and Fisher's exact tests (p <0.05). RESULTS: Only 455 dentists (3.3%, mean age: 52.3 ± 9.6) participated. Suggested therapeutic measures were statistically significantly different between BEWE 1, 2 and 3 (p <0.001) and between anterior and posterior teeth with BEWE scores 1 or 2 (p ≤0.025). Initial erosive lesions (BEWE 1) were mainly treated by information about the main causes and/or preventive measures (posterior teeth: 75.6%, anterior teeth: 64.4%), only 20.0% and 31.3% considered restorative treatment for posterior and anterior teeth, respectively. For teeth presenting score 2, a very high proportion of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 60.6%) additionally to prevention, especially when anterior teeth (91.0%) were affected. In case of severe erosive lesions (BEWE 3), the vast majority of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 98.3%, anterior teeth: 99.8%). The decision-making was mainly dependent on the lesion depth, size of affected surfaces and the presence of pain. Fluoride agents and agents containing tin chloride or tin fluoride were most frequently recommended as preventive measures. If distinct defects (BEWE 2) were treated restoratively, mainly composite restorations were performed (posterior teeth: 72.0%, anterior teeth: 90.5%). Severe defects (BEWE 3) were mostly restored with ceramic restorations (posterior teeth: 66.1%, anterior teeth: 66.6%). CONCLUSION: Stepwise management of erosive tooth wear was observed. Dentists' decision-making was related to severity and localisation of erosive tooth wear and to various patient-related factors (e.g. depth of lesion and size of affected surface per tooth).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: This questionnaire survey aimed to analyse management strategies for erosive tooth wear and to identify factors influencing dentists' decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire presenting clinical cases with erosive tooth wear on anterior and posterior teeth (BEWE scores 1 to 3) was sent electronically to German dentists (n = 13.683). Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Kruskal-Wallis-tests and Fisher's exact tests (p <0.05). RESULTS: Only 455 dentists (3.3%, mean age: 52.3 ± 9.6) participated. Suggested therapeutic measures were statistically significantly different between BEWE 1, 2 and 3 (p <0.001) and between anterior and posterior teeth with BEWE scores 1 or 2 (p ≤0.025). Initial erosive lesions (BEWE 1) were mainly treated by information about the main causes and/or preventive measures (posterior teeth: 75.6%, anterior teeth: 64.4%), only 20.0% and 31.3% considered restorative treatment for posterior and anterior teeth, respectively. For teeth presenting score 2, a very high proportion of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 60.6%) additionally to prevention, especially when anterior teeth (91.0%) were affected. In case of severe erosive lesions (BEWE 3), the vast majority of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 98.3%, anterior teeth: 99.8%). The decision-making was mainly dependent on the lesion depth, size of affected surfaces and the presence of pain. Fluoride agents and agents containing tin chloride or tin fluoride were most frequently recommended as preventive measures. If distinct defects (BEWE 2) were treated restoratively, mainly composite restorations were performed (posterior teeth: 72.0%, anterior teeth: 90.5%). Severe defects (BEWE 3) were mostly restored with ceramic restorations (posterior teeth: 66.1%, anterior teeth: 66.6%). CONCLUSION: Stepwise management of erosive tooth wear was observed. Dentists' decision-making was related to severity and localisation of erosive tooth wear and to various patient-related factors (e.g. depth of lesion and size of affected surface per tooth).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: This questionnaire survey aimed to analyse management strategies for erosive tooth wear and to identify factors influencing dentists' decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire presenting clinical cases with erosive tooth wear on anterior and posterior teeth (BEWE scores 1 to 3) was sent electronically to German dentists (n = 13.683). Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Kruskal-Wallis-tests and Fisher's exact tests (p <0.05). RESULTS: Only 455 dentists (3.3%, mean age: 52.3 ± 9.6) participated. Suggested therapeutic measures were statistically significantly different between BEWE 1, 2 and 3 (p <0.001) and between anterior and posterior teeth with BEWE scores 1 or 2 (p ≤0.025). Initial erosive lesions (BEWE 1) were mainly treated by information about the main causes and/or preventive measures (posterior teeth: 75.6%, anterior teeth: 64.4%), only 20.0% and 31.3% considered restorative treatment for posterior and anterior teeth, respectively. For teeth presenting score 2, a very high proportion of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 60.6%) additionally to prevention, especially when anterior teeth (91.0%) were affected. In case of severe erosive lesions (BEWE 3), the vast majority of dentists considered restorative treatment (posterior teeth: 98.3%, anterior teeth: 99.8%). The decision-making was mainly dependent on the lesion depth, size of affected surfaces and the presence of pain. Fluoride agents and agents containing tin chloride or tin fluoride were most frequently recommended as preventive measures. If distinct defects (BEWE 2) were treated restoratively, mainly composite restorations were performed (posterior teeth: 72.0%, anterior teeth: 90.5%). Severe defects (BEWE 3) were mostly restored with ceramic restorations (posterior teeth: 66.1%, anterior teeth: 66.6%). CONCLUSION: Stepwise management of erosive tooth wear was observed. Dentists' decision-making was related to severity and localisation of erosive tooth wear and to various patient-related factors (e.g. depth of lesion and size of affected surface per tooth).

Key concepts: Medicine, Dentistry, Posterior teeth, Anterior teeth, Tooth wear, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Carious lesion, Exact test

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Questionnaire Survey on the Management of Erosive Tooth Wear. — Research Paper | ScholarLens