Diagnosing tooth wear, a new taxonomy based on the revised version of the Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES 2.0).
European Consensus Statement (ECS)
Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES)
classification
diagnosis
management
pathological
physiological
taxonomy
tooth wear
Journal
Journal of oral rehabilitation
ISSN: 1365-2842
Titre abrégé: J Oral Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0433604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
14
07
2019
revised:
10
02
2020
accepted:
11
03
2020
pubmed:
11
4
2020
medline:
2
6
2020
entrez:
11
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tooth wear is a multifactorial condition, leading to the loss of dental hard tissues. Physiological tooth wear is a slow process that normally does not lead to any subjective symptoms. When the condition progresses, it can become pathological, and several signs and symptoms may occur. The Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES) was described to implement a systematic diagnostic and management approach. Recently, management guidelines were presented in a European Consensus Statement (ECS) as well. To evaluate the TWES in practice and to integrate the principles described in the ECS in order to compose a renewed TWES 2.0 and a new taxonomy. The TWES and the recommendations of the ECS were used by dental clinicians, in order to test its applicability in practice. Agreement was reached that the TWES 2.0 will use a stepwise approach, with a straightforward Tooth Wear Screening part and a more detailed Tooth Wear Status part. Also, the assessment of pathology from the ECS is incorporated in the TWES 2.0 (both classification and taxonomy). In the TWES 2.0 is described that tooth wear is pathological if moderate/severe/extreme tooth wear is present, in combination with one or several described signs and symptoms. Aetiology can be assessed by findings that indicate a chemical and/or a mechanical cause. The taxonomy may help to identify situations in which preventive (restorative) interventions in early stages of tooth wear can be indicated. The reliability and validity of the adapted parts must be proven.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tooth wear is a multifactorial condition, leading to the loss of dental hard tissues. Physiological tooth wear is a slow process that normally does not lead to any subjective symptoms. When the condition progresses, it can become pathological, and several signs and symptoms may occur. The Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES) was described to implement a systematic diagnostic and management approach. Recently, management guidelines were presented in a European Consensus Statement (ECS) as well.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the TWES in practice and to integrate the principles described in the ECS in order to compose a renewed TWES 2.0 and a new taxonomy.
METHODS
METHODS
The TWES and the recommendations of the ECS were used by dental clinicians, in order to test its applicability in practice.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Agreement was reached that the TWES 2.0 will use a stepwise approach, with a straightforward Tooth Wear Screening part and a more detailed Tooth Wear Status part. Also, the assessment of pathology from the ECS is incorporated in the TWES 2.0 (both classification and taxonomy).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the TWES 2.0 is described that tooth wear is pathological if moderate/severe/extreme tooth wear is present, in combination with one or several described signs and symptoms. Aetiology can be assessed by findings that indicate a chemical and/or a mechanical cause. The taxonomy may help to identify situations in which preventive (restorative) interventions in early stages of tooth wear can be indicated. The reliability and validity of the adapted parts must be proven.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32274827
doi: 10.1111/joor.12972
pmc: PMC7384115
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
703-712Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Am J Dent. 2019 Feb;32(1):3-8
pubmed: 30834724
J Dent. 2019 Mar;82:22-29
pubmed: 30633931
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Jun;47(6):703-712
pubmed: 32274827
Eur J Oral Sci. 1996 Apr;104(2 ( Pt 2)):229-40
pubmed: 8804891
Monogr Oral Sci. 2014;25:22-31
pubmed: 24993255
Br Dent J. 2019 Dec;227(11):985-988
pubmed: 31844228
Monogr Oral Sci. 2014;25:253-61
pubmed: 24993273
J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S1-S8
pubmed: 29926946
J Oral Rehabil. 1977 Jan;4(1):65-76
pubmed: 265365
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 May;22 Suppl 1:168-174
pubmed: 31074138
Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(1):69-78
pubmed: 30848256
Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Jan-Feb;22(1):35-42
pubmed: 19260425
Br Dent J. 2018 Jul 27;225(2):94
pubmed: 30050227
Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21
pubmed: 21657122
BMC Oral Health. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):115
pubmed: 27809895
Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):388-90
pubmed: 19639077
Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S65-8
pubmed: 18228057
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2011 Jun;118(6):324-8
pubmed: 21761796
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Feb;24(2):735-745
pubmed: 31134345
Caries Res. 2016;50(6):543-550
pubmed: 27694757
J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Apr;46(4):398-405
pubmed: 30883878
J Orofac Pain. 1995 Summer;9(3):266-75
pubmed: 8995926
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Dec;86(6):597-602
pubmed: 11753310
J Dent. 2010 Feb;38(2):131-7
pubmed: 19799959
Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(1):11-19
pubmed: 30848250
J Dent Res. 1989 Dec;68(12):1752-4
pubmed: 2600255
Monogr Oral Sci. 2014;25:1-15
pubmed: 24993253
Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Nov-Dec;12(6):514-8
pubmed: 10815604
J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(2):111-119
pubmed: 28439579
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 Jul;31(4):369-377
pubmed: 31058428
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8
pubmed: 23395338
Br Dent J. 1984 Jun 23;156(12):435-8
pubmed: 6590081
J Dent. 2015 Jan;43(1):42-50
pubmed: 25446243
Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17
pubmed: 25019118
J Contemp Dent Pract. 1999 Nov 15;1(1):16-23
pubmed: 12167897
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Aug;43(8):615-20
pubmed: 27132187
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Mar;47(3):353-360
pubmed: 31721264
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Jan;43(1):69-80
pubmed: 26333037