Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2009
The prevalence of cervical tooth wear in patients with bruxism and other causes of wear.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Punit, Razavi Sheri, Bartlett David W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of cervical wear lesions in three groups of patients: bruxists, combined tooth wear, and controls. The hypothesis was that those subjects presenting with bruxism were more likely to develop cervical wear lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 119 subjects, 31 were bruxists with a mean age 48.7 years [standard deviation (SD): 11.6]; 22 had combined wear, aged 43.5 years (14.2); and 66 controls aged 44.9 years (17.0). The clinical appearance of the tooth wear was used to recruit subjects to the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups. Control subjects were randomly selected from those attending for routine dental examination at two general dental practices. A tooth wear index (TWI) was used by two trained examiners to record the severity of wear in each group.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the controls and both the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups for wear on all surfaces (p < or = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the bruxist and the combined tooth wear group for wear on any surface. There was a statistically significant difference between the control group and both the bruxist and the combined tooth wear group for the severity of cervical wear (p < or = 0.005), but no difference between the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups. There was also no statistical difference in the number of cervical lesions between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the likely cause of cervical tooth wear was multifactorial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 119 subjects, 31 were bruxists with a mean age 48.7 years [standard deviation (SD): 11.6]; 22 had combined wear, aged 43.5 years (14.2); and 66 controls aged 44.9 years (17.0). The clinical appearance of the tooth wear was used to recruit subjects to the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups. Control subjects were randomly selected from those attending for routine dental examination at two general dental practices. A tooth wear index (TWI) was used by two trained examiners to record the severity of wear in each group.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the controls and both the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups for wear on all surfaces (p < or = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the bruxist and the combined tooth wear group for wear on any surface. There was a statistically significant difference between the control group and both the bruxist and the combined tooth wear group for the severity of cervical wear (p < or = 0.005), but no difference between the bruxist and combined tooth wear groups. There was also no statistical difference in the number of cervical lesions between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the likely cause of cervical tooth wear was multifactorial.