Gingival recession exposing dentin
The most common aetiology of exposing radicular dentin is recession of the gingival marginal tissues. This process is characterised by the displacement of the gingival margin apical to the cement–enamel junction thereby exposing visible cementum of the root surface, which is then rapidly lost [
51]. Epidemiologic surveys revealed that gingival recession is a common entity amounting to 60–90 % of the adult Western European population [
52]. It is probable that no one factor in isolation leads to the development of gingival recession. Possible causes are thin alveolar cortex, periodontitis and management of the condition, buccal or lingual dehiscence and fenestration of alveolar bone, trauma, orthodontic therapy, oral piercing, self-inflicted injury, prosthodontic treatment traumatising the keratinized gingival and traumatic toothbrushing. These factors could act synchronously [
53].
Data are limited, but from reviews [
53‐
55], gingival recession is not age-related. However, it is reported as being positively associated with some patients suffering from horizontal bone loss due to osteoporosis [
56]. Gingival recession can also be associated with both healthy and diseased periodontium and high and low standards of oral hygiene [
53]. Löe et al. [
57] reported that the occurrence of gingival recession was significantly higher in people without any dental hygiene compared to those with a reasonable level of oral hygiene.
There is good evidence demonstrating that periodontal disease and periodontal treatment result in compensatory remodelling of the supporting tissues around the tooth after tissue destruction, leading to an apical shift of the soft tissue margin [
58] and often results in root sensitivity, occurring in approximately half of patients following scaling and root planning [
59]. The amount of gingival recession that may occur varies with the therapy undertaken [
60]. Gingival tissues are rarely static following periodontal treatment and movement can occur over time when patients are in the maintenance phase [
61], probably depending on the gingival biotype, underlying bony architecture and remission of stability, as well as harmful patient oral hygiene habits. Recession due to periodontal diseases can be at any site, buccally/lingually as well as interdentally [
62].
Smoking is a risk factor strongly associated with periodontitis and will increase the likelihood of recession in periodontal tissues, depending on the number of cigarettes smoked daily and the duration of the habit [
63,
64], being more pronounced in men than in women [
63] and particularly after periodontal regenerative surgical procedures [
65,
66].
What is not so clear is the effect of smoking on the gingival health of people not susceptible to periodontal disease. The research is not conclusive with Gunnsolley et al. [
67] demonstrating a strong association between smoking and both attachment loss and recession in subjects who have minimal or no periodontal disease. Other data do not support the hypothesis that smokers not susceptible to periodontal disease are at an increased risk for the development of gingival recession [
68]. There is probably a number of confounding factors to explain these differences in the research outcomes, such as the gingival biotype and oral hygiene habits; smokers often brushing their teeth over zealously due to increased staining of the hard tissue [
69].
The aetiology of gingival recession in the healthy periodontium is circumstantial and based on clinical observation with epidemiological data [
70,
71]. These data associate recession with tooth surfaces that receive the most attention during the brushing cycle [
54,
71‐
74], namely the buccal surfaces. Observing the toothbrushing cycle is far from straight forward due to change in habit on observation. Rugg-Gunn et al. [
75] showed the brushing cycle was in the order of about 1 min; however, the tooth surfaces did not receive equal brushing time; the first site receiving the most attention and the last the least [
75,
76]. Recently, there has been an increase in the use of power brushes. Interestingly, their brush head action has not been shown to cause more gingival recession than manual brushes documented in a Cochrane Review [
77]. Plaque data suggest an inverse relationship with recession; plaque scores lower at recession sites [
11]. Epidemiological plaque distribution data show superior plaque control at similar sites to recession, with scores lowest at canine and premolar teeth, buccal surfaces and left sides of the dental arches [
78].
During any brushing cycle, the toothbrush is thought to scratch the gingival tissues to some degree [
79‐
81], possibly causing recession. Some individuals are known to be more obsessive regarding toothbrushing habits, particularly those with dentin hypersensitivity, regularly brushing three or more times a day [
82,
83] and for longer periods of time than the average population [
84], again predisposing individuals to more likelihood of permanent trauma and recession. The gingival biotype is rarely mentioned in dentin hypersensitivity studies and reviews, yet places a major role in gingival surgery risk assessment of recession [
85‐
87].
In conclusion, although toothbrushing would appear influential in the trauma to gingival tissues, the benefits of tooth brushing to gingival health, however, far outweigh any downside in respect of resulting gingival recession [
88].
Gingival recessions due to other aetiologies have been demonstrated, for example, anatomical predisposition due to absent or thin buccal alveolar bone [
89]. Factitious or self-inflicted gingival damage can also cause a problem [
53,
55]. Gingival recession is now not uncommon in young adults with intra- and perioral piercing as they may cause gingival tissue trauma [
90,
91]. Sluzkey and Levin [
92] found that prevalence, extent and severity of recession correlated with past orthodontic treatment. Frontolateral bruxism has been also associated with the initiation and/or enhancement of the development of gingival recession [
93]. A further possible etiological factor may be orthodontic movement of teeth to positions outside the labial or lingual plate, which could lead to dehiscence formation [
56,
94].
Loss of hard tissue exposing dentin
Dentin hypersensitivity involves loss of hard tissue exposing dentin. Above the cemental–enamel junction (CEJ), loss of enamel is a necessary prerequisite for dentin exposure, and below the CEJ as soon as cementum is exposed, it becomes non-viable and is lost leaving dentin exposed. While frank carious lesions with dentin exposure of smooth tooth surface are a rather rare finding today, development of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) are important factors for dentin exposure at the gingival margin. This process is usually of multifactorial aetiology, and rarely only due to one of the wear phenomenon [
95,
96], as demonstrated over many years [
97,
98]. Aubry et al. [
98] evaluated in a recent study archaeological samples from France and found no NCCLs in 3,927 teeth from 259 individuals. They also reported that the risk of NCCL was higher for women and increased with age. Premolars were the most affected tooth type. The comparison of dental hard tissue microstructure of archaeological and modern teeth has not shown any difference that could explain the different prevalence rates [
99]. Non-carious cervical lesions are an entity found in modern civilization produced by nutrition behaviour and the use of tooth cleaning devices [
100]. The buccal or labial surfaces of different teeth are the most frequent locations, but lingual and interproximal surfaces may also be affected. While tooth wear is an almost universal condition also in the modern population, severe dentin exposure on cervical sites is relatively uncommon (2–6 %). The aetiology appears to be multifactorial including abrasion, erosion and possibly microfractures (abfraction) [
95,
96]. However, Wood et al. [
101] concluded that an abfraction lesion is more likely due to abrasion and erosion only.
Abrasion, the physical wear as a result of mechanical processes involving foreign substances or objects, is a major factor in the aetiology of NCCL [
102]. Numerous peer review papers have cited abrasion, with circumstantial evidence indicating toothbrushing with a paste, as the main aetiological cause of dentin wear [
70‐
72,
79,
103]. However, whilst radicular dentin wear from overzealous toothbrushing may be solely responsible for a small percentage of dentin hypersensitivity cases [
104], it is likely that erosive components exacerbate the condition, resulting in tissue loss and tubular opening [
105]. Today’s low-abrasive toothpastes could minimise this risk if used in the normal twice-a-day manner [
106].
Although the abrasivity of toothbrushing alone to enamel is almost certainly negligible, and minimal to dentin, features of the toothbrush head and filament stiffness can modify the abrasivity of toothpastes [
107,
108] and force of brushing [
109] in a normal twice-a-day brushing regimen in vitro studies [
95,
103,
105,
110]. In contrast, toothpaste has great potential to harm the dental hard tissues by virtue of its degree of abrasivity. The Relative Dentin Abrasion (RDA) and Relative Enamel Abrasion of a toothpaste define its abrasive potential on a normalised scale with an accepted standard material serving as a reference [
111]. In situ studies to investigate the effects of abrasion on dentin have shown that dentin is considerably more susceptible than enamel to abrasion alone [
112] and that significant differences in dentin wear can be detected between a moderate- and high-RDA toothpaste [
113]. These effects on enamel can be explained by the fact that most toothpaste contains abrasives which are softer than enamel. The exceptions are those few products containing non-hydrated alumina which can abrade enamel [
88]. Even in these cases, careful extrapolation of data in vitro suggest, in normal use, that even these products would take hundreds of years to remove 1 mm of enamel.
The susceptibility of dentin to abrasive wear has been shown to be further increased when challenged in vitro prior to toothbrushing with an erosive insult; the toothbrush easily removing the superficially demineralised hard tissue [
105,
114], findings that were supported more recently in vitro [
110] and in situ [
106]. Both abrasive and erosive components are important in this type of tooth wear, and indeed the RDA of the paste may be more influential than the erosive component. This would suggest that for these individuals, a low or moderate RDA paste should be advocated for safety, as well as preventive advice on tooth wear.
When comparing manual brushes for types for bristle, soft and hard toothbrushes were found to produce no significant difference in toothbrush abrasion of softened human enamel [
115]; the calculated thickness of the softened enamel varied between 254 and 323 nm, depending on the acid used [
116]. Reviews suggest that there is no difference in hard tooth tissue abrasion between electric or manual brushes using a toothpaste [
80]. This is due to electric brushes using less force than manual brushes [
80,
103]. An alternative explanation is that the rapid head and/or filament actions of electric brushes may quickly dislodge the toothpaste from the brush head [
88].
Toothpaste detergents also chemically “abrade” dentin probably by dissolution of the collagen matrix [
117]. However, in vitro data suggest that in normal use, toothpastes, conforming to the International Standards Organisation for abrasivity, will take many tens of years, in excess of one hundred years, to remove 1 mm of dentin [
118,
119]. Toothpastes therefore appear to play a role in localising sites of dentin hypersensitivity by acting synergistically with erosion in removing enamel at the cervical areas.
Erosion is defined as chemical wear as the result of extrinsic or intrinsic acid or chelators acting on plaque-free tooth surfaces [
102]. Erosion starts by softening of the surface and is followed by continuous layer-by-layer dissolution leading to permanent loss of tooth volume with softened layer at the surface of the remaining tissue. There are extrinsic and intrinsic causes of erosion. Extrinsic factors are not only mainly acidic food and beverages but also medicines and oral hygiene products [
120]. Intrinsic erosion is caused by gastric juices, possibly caused by, for example, reflux disease, eating disorders, chronic alcoholism and pregnancy. However, different biological, chemical and behavioural factors modify the effect of acidic agents on enamel [
121]. In a hitherto unpublished study, the authors demonstrated that saliva, from patients without erosion, exhibited a protective effect compared to saliva from individuals with severe erosion. This may be one reason why some individuals exhibit less erosion than others even if they are exposed to exactly the same acid challenge in the diet. Erosive tooth wear is not caused solely by acid challenge and chelating agents themselves. In vitro studies show that a few micrometres of tissue is lost due to the influence of an erosive challenge (once the surface is softened, it might be easily abraded by oral soft tissues), toothbrushing with dentifrices or coarse food stuff [
120,
122]. Potential routes for deep acid penetration into the dentin are afforded by the dentin tubules where clearance and salivary buffering are less effective. The collagen layer is largely unaffected by dietary erosion and forms a mat of fibrils as the mineralized matrix dissolves, although abrasive influences will probably result in change. The relevance and clinical implications of this layer have yet to be fully understood in the erosion/abrasion wear of dentin [
123,
124].
Erosion caused by extrinsic acids on hard tooth substrate has been considered to be the most common and important aetiological factor in tooth wear [
125]. However, this may not be the case with cervical tooth wear seen in dentin hypersensitivity.
Abfraction (fatigue wear) means physical wear as a result tensile or shear stress in the cemento–enamel region provoking microfractures in enamel and dentin [
102]. Many in vitro studies explaining cervical lesions as a result of abfraction do not consider the resilience of the periodontal ligament functioning as a shock absorber. Grippo and Simring [
126] stated that toothpaste abrasion in a corrosive (erosive) environment increases loss of tooth structure due to tensile forces concentrated at the cervical area of teeth. It has also been postulated that lack of Hunter Schreger-bands in the vulnerable cervical region contributes to the development of abfraction lesions [
127,
128]. Many teeth present signs of traumatic occlusion but do not show cervical lesions. Thus, occlusal trauma alone cannot satisfactorily explain the development of NCCLs, and it may be assumed that the role of occlusal loading in NCCLs appears to be part of a multifactorial event. A critical review [
129] emphasised that the cause of pathological levels of tooth wear is difficult to diagnose and is generally a result of erosion, abrasion and attrition, and they also summarise that V-shaped lesion develop as a result of erosion and abrasion rather than from abfraction. Sharply defined margins could be caused by abfraction and/or abrasion due to excessive tooth brushing, while dish-shaped broader and shallow lesions could be caused by erosion. However, the term NCCL illustrates the fact that it is hardly possible to decide which kind of destruction leads to this kind of lesion.
Other types of wear affect hard tooth tissue; however, they are thought only rarely to be involved in the aetiology of dentin hypersensitivity. Foodstuffs are known to wear the occlusal surface of the teeth [
114]; for example, the erosive nature of roasted vegetables compared to other cooking styles [
130]. Attrition [
131] may play a role in some cases of occlusal dentin hypersensitivity, due to parafunctional habits like bruxism [
132].
Loss of dentin and enamel may be due to any or a combination of the tooth wear processes, including erosion, abrasion, attrition and abfraction. The interaction between erosion and abrasion would appear to be strong factors for the majority of wear at the cervical margin and opening of dentinal tubules.