SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Defining progression in erosive tooth wear: an interpretive challenge.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo critically evaluate current approaches to longitudinal erosive tooth wear (ETW) monitoring and examine whether quantitative intraoral scanner (IOS)-based measurements and conventional clinical indices can be meaningfully compared in defining progression. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review identified longitudinal studies evaluating ETW using IOS-based quantitative approaches alongside conventional clinical assessment methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to January 2026, with grey literature sources also searched. The electronic database searches were updated in August 2026 using the original search strategies. Reference-list screening and forward citation tracking were undertaken alongside both the initial search and the updated search.
resultsFive longitudinal studies met the eligibility criteria. IOS-based approaches consistently detected measurable surface change over time, including during relatively short follow-up intervals in which conventional clinical indices frequently demonstrated no categorical progression. Substantial heterogeneity existed in progression thresholds, outcome measures, superimposition methodologies, and reporting strategies. Agreement between IOS-derived measurements and conventional index scores was variable and generally weak to moderate. IOS quantifies continuous dimensional change, whereas clinical indices categorise severity using ordinal scales. No validated framework was identified linking quantified dimensional surface loss to clinically meaningful ETW progression.
conclusionsQuantitative IOS measurements and conventional clinical indices assess different dimensions of tooth wear and cannot currently be interpreted as directly interchangeable measures of progression. Validated frameworks linking quantitative surface loss to biological and clinical relevance are required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IOS enables high-resolution longitudinal quantification of tooth surface change, but the clinical significance of detected change remains uncertain. Establishing clinically meaningful progression thresholds is essential for integrating quantitative digital monitoring into routine care.
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.