ReviewBritish dental journal2019
Non-carious cervical lesions - can terminology influence our clinical assessment?
Review in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the packing density of Hunter-Schreger bands (HSB): a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Trial
- Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Introspection of the Etiopathological Mechanisms Underlying Noncarious Cervical Lesions: Analysis of the Different Theories and Their Impact on the Mineralized Structures of the Tooth.International journal of dentistry · 2023Review
- Diagnosing tooth wear, a new taxonomy based on the revised version of the Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES 2.0).Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Abfraction is a theoretical term used that has been classified as a type of non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) and characterised by the microstructural loss of hard dental tissue in areas of high stress concentration. There is a lack of consensus among researchers and clinicians as to whether occlusal loading, particularly interferences or eccentric loading, generates sufficient tensile stress to be an aetiological factor in the loss of hard dental tissue at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).Aim This narrative review article assesses the evidence behind the theory of abfraction.Results It is difficult to control all influencing factors in a clinical trial making it challenging to generate sufficient evidence to conclusively support the theory of abfraction. There is limited evidence occlusal forces are an aetiological agent in non-carious cervical lesion development. However, if occlusal forces do play a role, the term non-carious cervical lesion is more reflective of the limited role it may play and a multifactorial aetiology.Conclusion The term 'abfraction lesion' remains misleading and could be removed from our diagnostic vocabulary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.