'Dental erosion: etiology, diagnosis and prevention'. Etiology of dental erosion-intrinsic factors. Dental erosion in gastroesophageal reflux disease. What is the critical pH and why does a tooth dissolve in acid? J Can Dent Assoc. Biological factors in dental caries enamel structure and the caries process in the dynamic process of demineralization and remineralization (part 2). Basel: Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers 2006: 1-8īaliga S, Muglikar S, Kale R. Dental erosion: from diagnosis to therapy. In this case, the splitting labial and palatal indirect resin composite veneer has been a treatment of choice regarding it simplicity, cost-effective and preservation of dental structure as well. Moreover, the case report represented the patient with severe dental erosion due to long-term contacted to acidic swimming pool water, resulting teeth hypersensitivity, worn out of enamel and dentin which is affected dentition dimension and appearance. This article addressed the principle of diagnosis and disease assessment for dental erosion and also the treatment options. Erosive lesions are basically affecting patient dentition integrity and esthetics, mostly starting with teeth hypersensitivity and progressing to loss of vertical dimension or vitality of dentition.

Intrinsic or extrinsic erosive causing factors are related to site and characteristic of lesions. Dental erosion is characterized by pathological loss of dentition structure as a consequence of the chemical dissolution of mineral content in dental hard tissue. Paranormal nutritional habits, for instant increased intake of acidic juices or carbonic beverages, as wellĪs acidic medications, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, or eating disorders, environmental exposure to acidic fumes or swimming pool water are some of the causative resulting in erosive tooth wear. Notably, there were fewer biological complications of cRBBs supporting structures than ISCs.Modern life styles are various, resulting in increasing incident of behavioral related diseases. However, cRBBs had a higher success rate and were more frequently categorized as successful than ISCs.

Implant-supported crowns and cRBBs in the rehabilitation of a BSTS survive similarly after at least 5 years. Biological complications of supporting structures were more common among ISCs (25.6%) compared with cRBBs (7.7%), P = 0.03. There was also a significant difference in the prevalence of supporting structures categorized as a “success”: ISCs (69.2%) and cRBBs (89.7%), P = 0.03. ISCs and cRBBs had similar survival rates: overall ( P = 0.96), supporting structures ( P = 0.14) and prostheses ( P = 0.44) There was a significant difference in the rate of overall success between ISCs and cRBBs ( P = 0.03), specifically with respect to the success rate of the supporting structures ( P = 0.03). Both had a mean observation time exceeding 100 months, P > 0.05. Seventy eight subjects participated in this study (39 ISC and 39 cRBB cases). Prevalence of survival and success (categories) were compared by chi-square/Fisher's exact test. Rates of survival and success were compared using log-rank statistics. The (i) survival (retention in mouth) and (ii) success (absence of complications requiring intervention) for the ISCs and cRBBs were compared (overall, supporting structures and that of the prostheses).

MethodsĪ case–control study among subjects who received ISC or cRBB rehabilitation at a teaching hospital. To compare “survival” and “success” of implant-supported crowns (ISC) and tooth-supported 2-unit cantilevered resin-bonded bridges (cRBB) in the rehabilitation of a bounded single tooth space (BSTS), after an observation period of ≥5 years.

Labial veeer lam