Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 124–130 | Cite as

Restoration of the Worn Dentition: Basic Prosthodontic Principles and Current Rehabilitation Techniques

  • Georgios MaroulakosEmail author
  • William W. Nagy
  • Panagiota G. Stathopoulou
  • Nikos Mattheos
  • Vasilios Chronopoulos
Digital and Esthetic Dentistry (P Stathopoulou and E Anadioti, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Digital and Esthetic Dentistry


Purpose of Review

Dental wear is an existing and increasing problem. This review aims to describe the prosthodontic principles as well as the current trends in materials and techniques for the rehabilitation of patients with worn dentition.

Recent Findings

The current literature includes a lot of information in relation to clinical and laboratory procedures for the restoration of the worn dentition. Also, recent in vitro and in vivo studies address the clinical success, properties, and wear behavior of current materials.


A plethora of materials are currently used to restore dental wear including, direct/indirect composite resin, and all-ceramic restorations. Minimally invasive procedures are based on adhesive cementation of restorations, and in many situations, patients are restored with partial coverage restorations. Long-term success of the rehabilitation is dependent on careful material selection, based on current evidence, careful execution of well-established rehabilitation techniques, and a patient-based individualized maintenance program.


Dental wear Rehabilitation Adhesive dentistry Minimally invasive dentistry 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Lambrechts P, et al. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res. 1989;68(12):1752–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verrett RG. Analyzing the etiology of an extremely worn dentition. J Prosthodont. 2001;10(4):224–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curtis DA, et al. Managing dental erosion. Today’s FDA : official monthly journal of the Florida Dental Association. 2012;24(4):44–5. 7-9, 51-3 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehta SB, et al. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 1. Assessment, treatment planning and strategies for the prevention and the passive management of tooth wear. Br Dent J. 2012;212(1):17–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noble W, et al. Multidisciplinary management of severe tooth surface loss: a case report. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2015;43(10):579–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94(1):10–92.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spear F. A patient with severe wear on the anterior teeth and minimal wear on the posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(10):1399–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spear F. A patient with severe wear on the posterior teeth and minimal wear on the anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140(1):99–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chronopoulos V et al. Complete mouth rehabilitation and gastroesophageal reflux disease: conventional and contemporary treatment approaches. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1)1–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehta SB, et al. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 2. Active restorative care 1: the management of localised tooth wear. Br Dent J. 2012;212(2):73–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehta SB, et al. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 3. Active restorative care 2: the management of generalised tooth wear. Br Dent J. 2012;212(3):121–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moayyedi P, Axon AT. Review article: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease—the extent of the problem. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22(Suppl 1):11–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duran-Cantolla J, et al. Frequency of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in dental patients with tooth wear. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11(4):445–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiens JP, Priebe JW. Occlusal stability. Dent Clin N Am. 2014;58(1):19–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van’t Spijker A, et al. Prevalence of tooth wear in adults. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(1):35–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreulen CM, et al. Systematic review of the prevalence of tooth wear in children and adolescents. Caries Res. 2010;44(2):151–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaeggi T, Lussi A. Prevalence, incidence and distribution of erosion. Monogr Oral Sci. 2014;25:55–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Asensio Acevedo R, et al. The use of indirect composite veneers to rehabilitate patients with dental erosion: a case report. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013;8(3):414–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Muts EJ, et al. Tooth wear: a systematic review of treatment options. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(4):752–9. This manuscript is the first systematic review to summarize basic treatment options for the worn dentition CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maveli TC, et al. In vitro comparison of the maxillary occlusal plane orientation obtained with five facebow systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):566–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinberg LA. An evaluation of the face-bow mounting. J of Prosthet Dent. 1961;11:32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagy WW, et al. Accuracy of a predetermined transverse horizontal mandibular axis point. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):387–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moslehifard E, et al. Full-mouth rehabilitation of a patient with severely worn dentition and uneven occlusal plane: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(1):56–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fradeani M, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation of a severely worn dentition with minimally invasive prosthetic procedures (MIPP). Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012;32(2):135–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eliyas S, Martin N. The management of anterior tooth wear using gold palatal veneers in canine guidance. Br Dent J. 2013;214(6):291–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schirra C. Loss of vertical dimension: extensive therapy in dentitions with erosion and abrasion. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(10):733–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bahillo J, et al. Full-mouth composite rehabilitation of a mixed erosion and attrition patient: a case report with V-shaped veneers and ultra-thin CAD/CAM composite overlays. Quintessence Int. 2014;45(9):749–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ammannato R, et al. The “index technique” in worn dentition: a new and conservative approach. Int J Esthet Dent. 2015;10(1):68–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Metz MJ, et al. A cost-effective treatment for severe generalized erosion and loss of vertical dimension of occlusion: laboratory-fabricated composite resin restorations. Gen Dent. 2015;63(5):e12–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nam J, Tokutomi H. Using zirconia-based prosthesis in a complete-mouth reconstruction treatment for worn dentition with the altered vertical dimension of occlusion. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(2):81–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fradeani M, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation of a worn dentition with a minimally invasive prosthetic procedure (MIPP). Int J Esthet Dent. 2016;11(1):16–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lux LH, et al. Comparison of the Kois Dento-facial analyzer system with an earbow for mounting a maxillary cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):432–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solaberrieta E, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of a 3-dimensional virtual method and the conventional method for transferring the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(3):191–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pokorny PH, et al. Occlusion for fixed prosthodontics: a historical perspective of the gnathological influence. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(4):299–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Freitas Jr AC, et al. Oral rehabilitation of severely worn dentition using an overlay for immediate re-establishment of occlusal vertical dimension. Gerodontology. 2012;29(1):75–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alqahtani F. Full-mouth rehabilitation of severely worn dentition due to soda swishing: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(1):50–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vailati F, et al. Full-mouth minimally invasive adhesive rehabilitation to treat severe dental erosion: a case report. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(1):83–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grutter L, Vailati F. Full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation in case of severe dental erosion, a minimally invasive approach following the 3-step technique. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013;8(3):358–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vailati F, et al. Adhesively restored anterior maxillary dentitions affected by severe erosion: up to 6-year results of a prospective clinical study. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013;8(4):506–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schepke U, Cune MS. Noninvasive restoration of severe erosion by means of CAD/CAM indirect composite occlusal restorations: a technical note. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27(2):134–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vailati F, Carciofo S. CAD/CAM monolithic restorations and full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation to restore a patient with a past history of bulimia: the modified three-step technique. Int J Esthet Dent. 2016;11(1):36–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lundeen HC, Wirth CG. Condylar movement patterns engraved in plastic blocks. J Prosthet Dent. 1973;30(6):866–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chang WS, et al. An in vitro evaluation of the reliability and validity of an electronic pantograph by testing with five different articulators. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Turner KA, Missirlian DM. Restoration of the extremely worn dentition. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52(4):467–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Levartovsky S, et al. The association between dental wear and reduced vertical dimension of the face: a morphologic study on human skulls. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(1):174–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ormianer Z, Palty A. Altered vertical dimension of occlusion: a comparative retrospective pilot study of tooth- and implant-supported restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(3):497–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sato S, et al. Removable occlusal overlay splint in the management of tooth wear: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(4):392–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vig RG, Brundo GC. The kinetics of anterior tooth display. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39(5):502–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marcuschamer E, et al. Anatomical crown width/length ratios of worn and unworn maxillary teeth in Asian subjects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(5):495–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tsukiyama T, et al. Comparison of the anatomic crown width/length ratios of unworn and worn maxillary teeth in Asian and white subjects. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;107(1):11–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Silverman MM. Accurate measurement of vertical dimension by phonetics and the speaking centric space. Part I. Dent Dig. 1951;57(6):261–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pound E. Let /S/ be your guide. J Prosthet Dent. 1977;38(5):482–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Silverman MM. The comparative accuracy of the closet-speaking-space and the freeway space in measuring vertical dimension. J Acad Gen Dent. 1974;22(5):34–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    • Sailer I, et al. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):603–23. This manuscript is one of few systematic reviews that aim to compare survival rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Creugers NH, et al. A meta-analysis of durability data on conventional fixed bridges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22(6):448–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002;22(3):241–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(5):503–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Prevalence of periradicular periodontitis associated with crowned teeth in an adult Scottish subpopulation. Br Dent J. 1998;185(3):137–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cheung GSP, et al. Fate of vital pulps beneath a metal-ceramic crown or a bridge retainer. Int Endod J. 2005;38(8):521–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bosch G, et al. Non- and minimally invasive full-mouth rehabilitation of patients with loss of vertical dimension of occlusion using CAD/CAM: an innovative concept demonstrated with a case report. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(3):273–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Edelhoff D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment options in fixed prosthodontics. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(3):207–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sethi S. A clinical case involving severe erosion of the maxillary anterior teeth restored with direct composite resin restorations. Int J Esthet Dent. 2016;11(2):281–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mehta SB, et al. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 4. An overview of the restorative techniques and dental materials commonly applied for the management of tooth wear. Br Dent J. 2012;212(4):169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vence BS. A systematic approach to full-mouth rehabilitation: clinical and laboratory guidelines. Quintessence of dental technology. Hanover Park: Quintessence Publishing; 2001. p. 78–92.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    • Guess PC, et al. Prospective clinical split-mouth study of pressed and CAD/CAM all-ceramic partial-coverage restorations: 7-year results. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26(1):21–5. This manuscript is a rare split-mouth clinical study that compares two different manufacturing methods of high strength glass ceramics. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vailati F, Belser UC. Full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation of a severely eroded dentition: the three-step technique. part 3. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008;3(3):236–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vailati F, Belser UC. Full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation of a severely eroded dentition: the three-step technique. part 2. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008;3(2):128–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vailati F, Belser UC. Full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation of a severely eroded dentition: the three-step technique. part 1. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008;3(1):30–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Carvalho TS, et al. Consensus report of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry: erosive tooth wear diagnosis and management. Swiss Dent J. 2016;126(4):342–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cheung SP, Dimmer A. Management of worn dentition with resin-bonded cast metal lingual veneering. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63(2):122–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vailati F, Belser UC. Palatal and facial veneers to treat severe dental erosion: a case report following the three-step technique and the sandwich approach. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2011;6(3):268–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Magne P, et al. In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(3):149–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hamburger JT, et al. Indirect restorations for severe tooth wear: fracture risk and layer thickness. J Dent. 2014;42(4):413–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schlichting LH, et al. Novel-design ultra-thin CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic occlusal veneers for the treatment of severe dental erosion. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(4):217–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Angeletaki F, et al. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:12–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    •• Morimoto S, et al. Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(9):985–94. This manuscript is a high quality comprehensive systematic review and the first one to investigate the survival of partial coverage occlusal all-ceramic restorations. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Milosevic A, Burnside G. The survival of direct composite restorations in the management of severe tooth wear including attrition and erosion: a prospective 8-year study. J Dent. 2016;44:13–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hamburger JT, et al. Clinical performance of direct composite restorations for treatment of severe tooth wear. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(6):585–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Attin T, et al. Composite vertical bite reconstructions in eroded dentitions after 5.5 years: a case series. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(1):73–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ramseyer ST, et al. Posterior vertical bite reconstructions of erosively worn dentitions and the “stamp technique”—a case series with a mean observation time of 40 months. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(3):283–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):587–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dıraçoğlu D, et al. Relationship between maximal bite force and tooth wear in bruxist and non-bruxist individuals. Arch Oral Biol. 2011;56(12):1569–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Rosentritt M, et al. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(3):935–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kim MJ, et al. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent. 2012;40(11):979–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Janyavula S, et al. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):22–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Passos SP, et al. Enamel wear opposing different surface conditions of different CAD/CAM ceramics. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(10):743–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stawarczyk B, et al. Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(1):102–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stawarczyk B, et al. Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(5):325–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Amer R, et al. Three-body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1151–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Burgess JO, et al. Enamel wear opposing polished and aged zirconia. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):189–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lawson NC, et al. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014;42(12):1586–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lee A, et al. Wear behavior of human enamel against lithium disilicate glass ceramic and type III gold. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Park JH, et al. Antagonist wear of three CAD/CAM anatomic contour zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(1):20–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1141–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mundhe K, et al. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):358–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Stober T, et al. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(4):314–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Passos SP, et al. In vitro wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Maroulakos
    • 1
    Email author
  • William W. Nagy
    • 2
  • Panagiota G. Stathopoulou
    • 3
  • Nikos Mattheos
    • 4
  • Vasilios Chronopoulos
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of General Dental SciencesMarquette University School of DentistryMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Restorative SciencesTexas A&M University, College of DentistryDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of PeriodonticsUniversity of Pennsylvania, School of Dental MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of ProsthodonticsHong Kong University, Faculty of DentistryHong KongChina
  5. 5.Department of ProsthodonticsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of DentistryAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations