Dental erosion, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and saliva: how are they related?
Section snippets
Aim
This study was designed to assess the prevalence and hence the extent of the problem of tooth wear in a group of patients presenting with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) to an Oesophageal Laboratory in the UK. Following 24-h pH measurement, tooth wear was assessed in patients that had pathological reflux according to the internationally recognised normals1., 2. and compared with a group of matched controls with no symptoms of GORD. Stimulated salivary flow rate and
Method and materials
Patients were recruited from those attending the Oesophageal Laboratory of St Thomas' Hospital who had been referred for investigation of GORD by manometry and 24-h oesophageal pH tests from a variety of medical sources. All patients selected had both procedures carried out. The presence or absence of oesophageal (heartburn, dysphagia, regurgitation, retrosternal chest pain) and/or extra-oesophageal (non-cardiac chest pain, hoarseness, laryngitis, globus and dental erosion) symptoms were
Results
One hundred and four patients with a mean age of 44 (standard deviation (SD)=14.4, 60 males and 44 females) and 31 controls with a mean age 42 (SD=16.2, 13 males and 18 females) were recruited. Saliva was assessed in all control subjects and 41 of the patients with the mean age of 46 (SD=13.2, 20 males and 21 females). The most common oesophageal symptoms were heartburn (72%), regurgitation (44%), dysphagia (36%) and the extra-oesophageal symptoms were asthma (16%), hoarsness (13%) and globus
Discussion
The level and assessment of tooth wear is interpreted differently around the world. Subtle differences in the diagnosis and the assessment mean that the prevalence data may not be entirely comparable across different countries.14 This difference would have clinical significance, especially if some countries diagnose cervical wear as erosion and others diagnose the same lesion as abrasion or abfraction. Therefore, comparing data from reflux patients with or without tooth wear may present
References (19)
- et al.
Evaluation of dental erosion in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease [Journal Article]
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
(2000) - et al.
Salivary secretion in reflux esophagitis
Gastroenterology
(1982) - et al.
Determinants of esophageal acid clearance in normal subjects
Gastroenterology
(1983) - et al.
Enhancement of salivary esophagoprotection: rationale for a physiological approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease [Journal Article]
Gastroenterology
(1996) - et al.
Oral pH and drinking habit during ingestion of a carbonated drink in a group of adolescents with dental erosion
Journal of Dentistry
(2000) - et al.
Dental erosion and diet
Journal of Dentistry
(1974) - et al.
Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux
American Journal of Gastroenterology
(1974) - et al.
Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
(1992) - et al.
A study of the association between gastro-oesophageal reflux and palatal dental erosion
British Dental Journal
(1996)
Cited by (112)
Prevalence and association of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dental erosion: An overview of reviews
2023, Journal of DentistryGastroesophageal reflux disease and dental erosion: The role of bile acids
2022, Archives of Oral BiologyThe interplay of saliva, erosion and attrition on enamel and dentine
2022, Saudi Dental JournalThe interrelationship between xerogenic medication use, subjective oral dryness and tooth wear
2021, Journal of DentistryThe association between erosive toothwear and gastro-oesophageal reflux-related symptoms and disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2020, Journal of DentistryCitation Excerpt :The other four studies did not have a corresponding control group and observed the prevalence of GERD/S in adult patients with dental erosion only. From the seven adult studies of the Pace et al. review, three were included in the current meta-analysis [10,12,26] while four studies [41–44] were excluded. One study was excluded due characteristics of the study population [41] and the other three studies did not include control groups [42,42,43,44].