Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 2567–2573 | Cite as

The influence of management of tooth wear on oral health-related quality of life

  • Bernadette A. M. M. Sterenborg
  • Ewald M. Bronkhorst
  • Peter Wetselaar
  • Frank Lobbezoo
  • Bas A. C. Loomans
  • Marie-Charlotte D. N. J. M. Huysmans
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify the level of oral health-related quality of life and orofacial appearance in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear. Patients with and without a request for restorative treatment were included.

Methods

One hundred twenty-four patients (98 men, 26 women, mean age: 40.5 ± 8.8 years) with moderate to severe tooth wear were included. Patients without a request for help received a non-restorative treatment of counseling and monitoring. Patients with a request for restorative treatment were treated with a full rehabilitation using composite resin restorations. Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL) and Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-NL) questionnaires were filled in at baseline and after 1 year.

Results

Counseling and monitoring group: baseline OHIP-NL score was 0.4 ± 0.3, baseline summary score of OES-NL was 48 ± 7.0, and baseline impression score was 7.1 ± 1.2. Scores had not changed significantly after 1 year (p = 1.00 after Bonferroni correction).Restoration group: baseline OHIP-NL score was 0.8 ± 0.6, baseline summary score of OES-NL was 38 ± 10, and baseline impression score was 5.9 ± 1.5. Scores had improved significantly after 1 year (p < 0.001 after Bonferroni correction).

Conclusions

Counseling and monitoring did not result in a significant deterioration and restorative treatment resulted in a significant improvement of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and orofacial appearance in this patient group.

Clinical significance

In patients with moderate to severe tooth wear, without functional and esthetical problems, counseling and monitoring may be an appropriate treatment option. Restorative treatment in patients with a need for treatment results in an improved OHRQoL. OHIP and OES questionnaires may be used to monitor changes in clinically relevant symptoms.

Keywords

Oral health-related quality of life Tooth wear Mouth rehabilitation OHIP-49 OES Management 

Introduction

Tooth wear is a loss of dental hard tissues which is irreversible, multifactorial, non-carious, and may, in some situations, lead to a pathological situation with functional or esthetical problems [19]. It is known that tooth wear may have an impact on patients’ satisfaction with their dentition regardless of tooth wear severity or personal factors. Mostly, patients complain about tooth sensitivity (dentin exposure), dental pain (involvement of the pulp), poor esthetics (shortened clinical crown length), and functional impairment (difficulties with chewing due to occlusal alterations and dental tissue loss) [25]. Dissatisfaction with their appearance is the most common complaint [7, 42], and problems with appearance and function motivate patients to seek treatment [15].

Dental disease may influence an individual’s capacity to live comfortably, be successful in employment, enjoy life, experience relationships, and possess a positive self-image [39]. Even though dental disease is rarely life-threatening, it can still affect quality of life [23, 27]. Different levels of oral status have various impacts on daily living, and therefore, both the clinical status and psychological dimensions should be addressed whenever dental treatment needs are being assessed [9, 23].

In general, three approaches are used to measure oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). These are the following: social indicators, global self-ratings, and multiple-item questionnaires. This conceptual model is based on the World Health Organization (WHO) document “the WHO international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps” [26]. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is the most frequently used oral-specific measure for oral health-related quality of life. It is a questionnaire that contains 49 statements organized in seven domains: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap [36]. The validity and reliability of the original English version of the OHIP have been evaluated in several epidemiological and cross-cultural studies [2, 3, 17, 36]. A Dutch translation of the OHIP has also been validated [40].

For the specific problems regarding appearance, a separate questionnaire has been developed: the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES), which aims to obtain a characterization of the orofacial esthetics [21, 22]. It consists of an eight-item instrument, which may be used to assess how patients perceive their dental and facial esthetics. The OES has also been validated for the Dutch language and showed good psychometric properties in a population with self-reported tooth wear [43].

Patients with severe tooth wear were shown to have an impaired OHRQoL, comparable to that of edentulous patients [30]. A recent study in the UK explored the association between tooth wear and quality of life among adults in the UK, independently of socio-demographic factors and other common oral conditions. It concluded that severe tooth wear was associated with psychological impacts on people’s life [24]. On the other hand, a study in 2011 in a sample of university students showed that tooth surface loss into dentine was prevalent among young adults, but that it had little impact on OHRQoL [10].

The purpose of this study was to identify the level of OHRQoL and orofacial appearance in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear. Patients were grouped into those with or without a request for restorative treatment. At baseline and after 1 year, the OHIP-NL and the OES-NL were completed, to analyze OHRQoL before and after non-restorative or restorative treatment.

Material and methods

Patients with tooth wear were referred by general dental practitioners to the Department of Dentistry of the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands). The inclusion took place in the period September 2011 until June 2014. Ethical approval (for a larger study of which the current study is a part) was sought and granted before the study was undertaken (ABR code: NL31371.091.10). All patients who were asked to participate agreed and signed an informed consent document before entering the study.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were used for selection of the patients: (1) ≥ 18 years;

(2) moderate/severe tooth wear (TWI ≥ 2); (3) full dental arches, with a maximum of one missing tooth in the posterior area; (4) absence of serious general health problems (ASA score ≤ 3).

The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) mouth opening < 3.5 cm, (2) temporomandibular pain or dysfunction, (3) periodontitis (pockets > 4 mm), (5) active dental caries or endodontic problems.

Treatment

On the basis of the severity of the tooth wear and their objective and subjective treatment need, the patients were treated either with counseling and monitoring or with restorations.

Counseling and monitoring: This group contained patients without a clear request for restorative treatment. Counseling included information about the main cause of their tooth wear (chemical and/or mechanical). If necessary, specific preventive measures were advised (e.g., consultation with family doctor in case of gastroesophageal reflux disease, dietary advice, or the fabrication of a hard occlusal stabilization splint for nighttime usage).

Restorative treatment: This group contained patients with a clear request for restorative intervention due to functional (difficulties with chewing, discomfort) or esthetic problems. These patients were treated restoratively with a full rehabilitation using composite resin restorations, including an increase of vertical dimension of occlusion [29].

As these groups were obviously different on an important aspect, namely request for treatment, no treatment outcome comparisons between the groups were made.

Assessment of tooth wear

In order to score tooth wear, diagnostic study models were assessed. The tooth wear index (TWI) of Smith and Knight was used [37], with scores ranging between 0 (no loss of enamel surface characteristics) and 4 (complete enamel loss, pulp exposure, or secondary dentin exposure). Every surface of each tooth was assessed and the highest score was recorded. The highest score in the whole mouth determined the patient TWI score. Repeated measurements were made after 2 weeks on a random sample of 15 patients to determine reliability.

Questionnaires

At baseline and after 1 year, patients were asked to complete the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile-NL questionnaire and Orofacial Esthetic Scale-NL questionnaire [40, 43]. Following explanation of the questionnaire by a research assistant, patients completed the questionnaire without assistance. For each statement in the OHIP-NL, patients were asked to score how frequently they experienced the impact of this statement during the last month because of problems with their teeth, mouth, or dentures. The answers were scores on 5-point ordinal scales, ranging from never (0), hardly ever (1), occasionally (2) and fairly often (3), to very often (4) [40]. Higher scores imply a more impaired OHRQoL. Three questions refer exclusively to dentures (question nos. 9, 18, and 30) and were therefore excluded from our analysis. The sensitivity of the OHIP to change has been investigated and it was concluded that summing up scores was a good method to detect changes [1]. In our analysis, we used the summary score as suggested by John et al. [18].

In the OHIP questionnaire are questions included about the orofacial appearance but to get a better understanding of the impact of the orofacial appearance, it was decided to add the OES-NL questionnaire. The OES-NL consisted of eight questions about the appearance of the face, profile, mouth, tooth alignment, tooth shape, tooth color, and gums. The last question is an overall impression question and can be analyzed separately. The answers are scores on 11-point ordinal scales, ranging from very dissatisfied (0) to very satisfied (10). Lower scores imply more impaired orofacial appearance. For the summary score, items 1 to 7 are used; for the overall impression score, item 8 is used.

Missing data

If there were more than five questions on the total OHIP-NL or more than two questions from within one of the seven domains unanswered, the data was discarded. For the remainder, missing responses to individual questions were replaced with the mean value of the coded response of the corresponding question [34]. If there was more than one answer missing on the total OES-NL, the questionnaire was discarded.

Statistical analysis

Reliability for the TWI scores was calculated using a weighted Cohen’s kappa.

Data of the questionnaires at baseline was compared with data after 1 year using paired t tests, p < 0.05. Changes in summary score were analyzed for each of the two groups separately. Correction for multiple testing for the OHIP-NL outcome is mandatory and therefore the Bonferroni test was used. Eight tests were done, so the p values were multiplied by 8.

For the OES-NL, summary score (questions 1 to 7) and the overall impression score (question 8) were analyzed separately with paired t tests (95% CI, p < 0.05). In the OES-NL questionnaire, two questions refer specifically to the shape and color of teeth: questions 5 and 6. These outcomes and their correlation with the specific questions about esthetics in the OHIP-NL (3, 22, 31) were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation. All statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 22).

Results

In total, 124 patients (98 men, 26 women, mean age: 40.5 ± 8.8 years) participated in this study. The counseling & monitoring group consisted of 46 patients (37 men and 9 women, mean age: 40.8 ± 9.3 years), with a mean maximum TWI score of 2.9 ± 0.5. The restoration group consisted of 78 patients (61 men and 17 women, mean age: 40.3 ± 8.5 years), with a mean maximum TWI score of 3.3 ± 0.4. The TWI score had a weighted Cohen’s kappa score of 0.60. None of the OHIP-NL questionnaires had to be discarded for missing answers so there was no need for data imputation. For the OES-NL, 15 questionnaires had to be discarded due to missing answers. None of the patients dropped out of this study.

The results for the OHIP-NL are visualized in Fig. 1 and the analysis is presented in Table 1. In the counseling & monitoring group, the OHIP-NL showed no change over a period of 1 year: with a mean overall change over 1 year of 0.01 (SD 0.3; p = 1.0). In the restoration group, a statistically significant impact on OHRQoL was found: mean overall change over 1 year of − 0.5 (SD 0.5; p < 0.001).
Fig. 1

The summary scores of the OHIP-NL (mean (± SD)) within the counseling and monitoring group and restoration group at baseline and after 1 year. *p < 0.001

Table 1

Comparison (t test with Bonferroni correction included) of the counseling & monitoring group and the restoration group Baseline and after 1 year for the OHIP summary score (± SD)

Variable

Mean

95% CI of diff

Baseline

After 1 year

Mean difference

P value

Lower

Upper

Summary score counseling & monitoring group

0.4 (0.3)

0.4 (0.4)

0.01 (0.3)

1.0

− 0.07

0.09

Summaryscore restoration group

0.8 (0.6)

0.3 (0.3)

− 0.5 (0.5)

< 0.001

− 0.6

0.4

The results for the OES-NL are visualized in Fig. 2, showing a similar effect as seen for the OHIP, and the analysis is presented in Table 2. Both summary score (average change − 2, p = 0.12) and overall impression score (average change − 0.1; p = 0.71) did not change significantly in the counseling & monitoring group. Patients in the restoration group did show significant changes for both the summary score (average change 19; p < 0.001) and overall impression score (average change 2.5; p < 0.001).
Fig. 2

The summary scores of the OES-NL (mean (± SD)) within the counseling and monitoring group and restoration group at baseline and after 1 year. *p < 0.001

Table 2

Comparisons (t test) between baseline and after 1 year for the counseling & monitoring group and the restoration group, using the Orofacial Esthetic Scale summary score and the overall impression score (± SD)

 

N

Mean baseline

Mean after 1 year

Mean difference

95% CI of diff

P value

OES summary score

 Counseling & monitoring group

44

48 (7.0)

46 (7.6)

− 2 (6.7)

− 3.6… 0.4

0.12

 Restoration group

65

38 (10)

57 (7.9)

19 (14)

16 … 23

< 0.001

OES overall impression score

 Counseling & monitoring group

44

7.1 (1.2)

7.0 (1.1)

− 0.1(0.9)

− 0.44… 0.29

0.71

 Restoration group

65

5.9 (1.5)

8.4 (1.1)

2.5 (2.0)

2.0… 3.0

< 0.001

In the counseling & monitoring group, there was no change for questions 5 (− 0.27 ± 1.5 (p = 0.26)) and 6 (− 0.34 ± 1.4 (p = 0.13)). In the restoration group, however, a significant increase was observed for both questions: 4.2 ± 2.8 (Q5, p < 0.001) and 3.2 ± 2.4 (Q6, p < 0.001). For OHIP-NL questions 3, 22, and 31, no change occurred for the counseling and monitoring group (p ≥ 0.15), while all questions showed change for the restoration group (p < 0.001). These groups of questions from the two questionnaires showed no correlation for the counseling & monitoring group (Spearman’s Rho baseline − 0.25, p = 0.10, 1 year 0.021, p = 0.89), but a significant positive (considering the opposite scales) correlation for the restoration group (baseline − 0.64, p < 0.001; 1 year − 0.32, p < 0.001).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of moderate to severe tooth wear on the oral health-related quality of life, and the effect 1 year after treatment either with counseling and monitoring or with composite restorations. To understand the impact of the esthetics on orofacial appearance better, the OES-NL was included in addition on the OHIP-NL. We did not aim to compare the two treatment modalities, as they are not equal alternatives, but each indicated in a different clinical situation. It was observed that patients with roughly comparable objective degrees of tooth wear (TWI 2.9 vs 3.3) reported a very different impact of this wear on their OHRQoL (OHIP-NL 0.4 vs 0.8). A major improvement in oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) resulted after restorative treatment, and patients who received counseling and monitoring only showed a stable OHRQoL over a period of 1 year.

Where a functional or esthetical demand for treatment is present, a dynamic treatment concept based on minimally invasive principles is generally preferred. In this concept, the word “dynamic” means retaining options for a new or repeated treatment when the first treatment fails [8]. Minimally invasive means that restorations are placed with a minimum of additional tooth loss or iatrogenic damage. In total rehabilitations of severely worn dentitions, direct composite resin restorations have been shown to be successful [4, 14, 28, 31]. Even indirect composite resin restorations can be used in a minimally invasive way. The results of these treatment options seem to be very satisfying; however, no data is presented about the effect of such treatment on OHRQoL. As far as we know, this is the first report showing that a restorative treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement of OHRQoL in patients with tooth wear. And perhaps equally important, we showed that in a group of patients with considerable tooth wear who received only counseling treatment, an option which may truly be called minimally invasive, no deterioration of OHRQoL could be observed over a period of 1 year.

With 97% male patients, the gender imbalance in this study is notable. A slight disbalance was also observed in studies with adolescents, in which it was found that more boys than girls had erosive tooth wear [12, 41]. In adult subjects with extensive (> 10% of surfaces) levels of tooth wear, highly significantly more men than women were affected [38]. Despite the limited data available on tooth wear rates, tooth wear progression rates were reported to be higher in males in some studies [11, 13], although other reports failed to find a difference [16, 20, 33]. The explanation for this higher prevalence of tooth wear in males is not yet available. Wetselaar et al. suggest that differences in diet may be a reason, due to the evidence that male adolescents and adults consume more acidic drinks than women, leading to possible more (erosive) tooth wear [46]. They also suggest that men’s masticatory muscles exert higher forces, which may cause more (mechanical) tooth wear.

Another interesting aspect is the relatively young age of the patients in the present study, with a mean age of 40.5 ± 8.8 years. Although tooth wear is partly an age-dependent physiological phenomenon, at every age there may be individuals showing a pathological degree or rate of wear. It may be argued that the severity of tooth wear should be viewed relative to the “normal” wear of the age group, and that the occurrence of severe wear is thus independent of age [6]. Other studies reporting similar proportions of severe levels of wear in different age groups support this theory [5, 11, 38, 45].

The higher degree of impact on OHRQoL of tooth wear in the group who received restorative treatment could be explained by both reduced self-confidence due to a compromised appearance and by pain and sensitivity, causing more effect on their OHRQoL. Patients with pain have been shown to have higher OHIP scores compared to patients without pain [30, 32, 35]. Whereas patients with tooth wear had similar OHIP scores to edentulous individuals, scores from patients with painful temporomandibular disorders were even higher, indicating that pain is an important aspect of OHRQoL [30]. Wetselaar et al. described reasons for a tooth wear patient to seek help: sensitivity and/or pain, difficulties with chewing/eating, impaired orofacial esthetics, and crumbling of dental hard tissue and/or dental restorations [44]. Patients who received a restorative treatment experienced the ability to eat and drink without pain after the treatment resulting in a major improvement in their OHRQoL. Li et al. showed that dentists, when making treatment decisions, should consider not only the patients’ objective clinical characteristics but also the impact of the condition on quality of life [24]. The decision for restorative treatment in the present patient group was strongly influenced by their subjective complaints of impaired appearance and pain.

Impaired orofacial esthetics was the highest scoring complaint in the restoration group. In a previous study in the Netherlands, the Dutch version of the OES was used for patients with and without self-reported tooth wear [43]. Summary scores were 46.4 ± 12.1 and overall impression scores 6.9 ± 1.7 for patients with tooth wear (n = 307) and 49.7 ± 11.3 and 7.2 ± 1.6, respectively, for patients without tooth wear (n = 276). These results are comparable to those of the present study for the counseling and monitoring group. The restoration group reported an improvement of their orofacial appearance using the OES-NL. For the counseling and monitoring group, there was no significant change after 1 year. In an ongoing study, the satisfaction with the facial appearance over a longer period of time will be investigated, to evaluate the long-term effects.

We observed no significant correlation between the esthetics-related questions of the OES-NL and the OHIP-NL for the counseling and monitoring group. For the restoration group, however, we observed significant correlations ranging from − 0.32 to − 0.64. This may be explained by the higher levels of impact of the esthetic aspect in the restoration group.

Conclusion

It was shown that in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear, but without a request for restorative treatment, no changes were observed in the level of their oral health-related quality of life and orofacial appearance over a period of 1 year. Patients who asked for restorative treatment, often for reasons of esthetics or pain, experienced a significant improvement of their oral health-related quality of life and orofacial appearance after restorative treatment.

Notes

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry Radboud University Medical Center—the Netherlands.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen PF, Mcmillan AS, Locker D (2001) An assessment of sensitivity to change of the Oral Health Impact Profile in a clinical trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(3):175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290303.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen PF, Mcmillan AS, Walshaw D et al (1999) A comparison of the validity of generic- and disease-specific measures in the assessment of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27(5):344–352.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02031.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allison P, Locker D, Jokovic A et al (1999) A cross-cultural study of oral health values. J Dent Res 78:643–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attin T, Filli T, Imfeld C et al (2012) Composite vertical bite reconstructions in eroded dentitions after 5.5 years: a case series. J Oral Rehabil 39:73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardsley PF, Taylor S, Milosevic A (2004) Epidemiological studies of tooth wear and dental erosion in 14-year-old children in orth West England. Part 1: the relationship with water fluoridation and social deprivation. Br Dent J 197(7):413–416; discussion 399.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811722 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartlett D, Dugmore C (2008) Pathological or physiological erosion—is there a relationship to age? Clin Oral Investig 12(Suppl 1):S27–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burnett CA, Hussey DL, Clifford TJ (2001) Presentation, diagnosis and initial management of patients referred to a hospital tooth wear clinic. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 9(1):5–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Creugers NH (2003) Minimal invasive dentistry. A revolutionary concept? Nederlands tijdschrift voor tandheelkunde 110(6):215–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cushing AM, Sheiham A, Maizels J (1986) Developing socio-dental indicators--the social impact of dental disease. Community Dent Health 3:3–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daly B, Newton JT, Fares J, Chiu K, Ahmad N, Shirodaria S, Bartlett D (2011) Dental tooth surface loss and quality of life in university students. Prim Dent Care 18(1):31–35.  https://doi.org/10.1308/135576111794065793 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dugmore CR, Rock WP (2003) Awareness of tooth erosion in 12 year old children and primary care dental practitioners. Community Dent Health 20(4):223–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Aidi H, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC et al (2011) Multifactorial analysis of factors associated with the incidence and progression of erosive tooth wear. Caries Res 45(3):303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000328671 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El Aidi H, Bronkhorst EM, Truin GJ (2008) A longitudinal study of tooth erosion in adolescents. J Dent Res 87(8):731–735.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700813 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamburger JT, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Kreulen CM, Roeters JJ, Huysmans MC (2011) Clinical performance of direct composite restorations for treatment of severe tooth wear. J Adhes Dent 13(6):585–593.  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a22094 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hemmings KW, Howlett JA, Woodley NJ, Griffiths BM (1995) Partial dentures for patients with advanced tooth wear. Dental update 22(2):52–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johansson A, Haraldson T, Omar R et al (1993) A system for assessing the severity and progression of occlusal tooth wear. J Oral Rehabil 20:125–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD (2002) The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile--translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci 110(6):425–433.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.21363.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    John MT, Feuerstahler L, Waller N et al (2014) Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:644–652CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelleher M, Bishop K (1999) Tooth surface loss: an overview. Br Dent J 186(2):61–66.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800020a2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M et al (1989) Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68:1752–1754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, Bondemark L, List T (2010) Development of an Orofacial Esthetic Scale in prosthodontic patients. Int J Prosthodont 23(3):249–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, List T (2010) Reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in prosthodontic patients. Int J Prosthodont 23(3):257–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leao A, Sheiham A (1995) Relation between clinical dental status and subjective impacts on daily living. J Dent Res 74(7):1408–1413.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345950740071301 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li MH, Bernabe E (2016) Tooth wear and quality of life among adults in the United Kingdom. J Dent 55:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lobbezoo F (2007) Taking up challenges at the interface of wear and tear. J Dent Res 86(2):101–103.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910708600201 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Locker D (1988) Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 5(1):3–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Locker D, Slade G (1993) Oral health and the quality of life among older adults: the Oral Health Impact Profile. Journal 59:830-833, 837-838, 844Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mesko ME, Sarkis-Onofre R, Cenci MS et al (2016) Rehabilitation of severely worn teeth: a systematic review. J Dent 48:9–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Opdam N, Skupien JA, Kreulen CM et al. (2016) Case report: a predictable technique to establish occlusal contact in extensive direct composite resin restorations: the DSO-technique. Operative dentistryGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papagianni CE, Van Der Meulen MJ, Naeije M et al (2013) Oral health-related quality of life in patients with tooth wear. J Oral Rehabil 40(3):185–190.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poyser NJ, Briggs PF, Chana HS et al (2007) The evaluation of direct composite restorations for the worn mandibular anterior dentition - clinical performance and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 34(5):361–376.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01702.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O et al (2007) Functional and psychosocial impact related to specific temporomandibular disorder diagnoses. J Dent 35(8):643–650.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.04.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rodriguez JM, Austin RS, Bartlett DW (2012) In vivo measurements of tooth wear over 12 months. Caries Res 46(1):9–15.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000334786 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Slade GD (1998) Assessing change in quality of life using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26(1):52–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb02084.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Slade GD, Foy SP, Shugars DA, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2004) The impact of third molar symptoms, pain, and swelling on oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(9):1118–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slade GD, Spencer AJ (1994) Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 11(1):3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith BG, Knight JK (1984) A comparison of patterns of tooth wear with aetiological factors. Br Dent J 157(1):16–19.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith BG, Robb ND (1996) The prevalence of toothwear in 1007 dental patients. J Oral Rehabil 23(4):232–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00846.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Strauss RP, Hunt RJ (1993) Understanding the value of teeth to older adults: influences on the quality of life. J Am Dent Assoc 124(1):105–110.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Der Meulen MJ, John MT, Naeije M et al (2008) The Dutch version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL): translation, reliability and construct validity. BMC oral health 8(1):11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-8-11 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Rijkom HM, Truin GJ, Frencken JE et al (2002) Prevalence, distribution and background variables of smooth-bordered tooth wear in teenagers in The Hague, the Netherlands. Caries Res 36(2):147–154.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000057874 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wazani BE, Dodd MN, Milosevic A (2012) The signs and symptoms of tooth wear in a referred group of patients. Br Dent J 213(6):E10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.840 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wetselaar P, Koutris M, Visscher CM et al (2015) Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-NL) in dental patients with and without self-reported tooth wear. J Oral Rehabil 42:803–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wetselaar P, Lobbezoo F (2015) The tooth wear evaluation system: a modular clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management planning of worn dentitions. Journal of oral rehabilitationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wetselaar P, Vermaire JH, Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F, Schuller AA (2016) The prevalence of tooth wear in the Dutch adult population. Caries Res 50(6):543–550.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000447020 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wetselaar P, Wetselaar-Glas MJ, Koutris M et al (2016) Assessment of the amount of tooth wear on dental casts and intra-oral photographs. J Oral Rehabil 43(8):615–620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12405 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernadette A. M. M. Sterenborg
    • 1
  • Ewald M. Bronkhorst
    • 1
  • Peter Wetselaar
    • 2
  • Frank Lobbezoo
    • 2
  • Bas A. C. Loomans
    • 1
  • Marie-Charlotte D. N. J. M. Huysmans
    • 1
  1. 1.Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Preventive and Restorative DentistryRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations