Noncarious Cervical Lesions: The Decision To Ignore or Restore

Abstract

A variety of unusual noncarious cervical lesions (NCL) are depicted that appear to negate W.D. Miller's toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion theory and demonstrate that other factors may be involved in their etiology. Confusion exists in the designation of NCL ever since G.V. Black stated in 1908 that toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion is an erosive effect. Since abrasion and erosion are two distinct activities, it is suggested that dentistry adopt the same terminology as chemical engineering in order to foster improved communication between the sciences. The term "abfraction" has been used to supplant erosion because it seems more appropriate when describing the loss of tooth substance attributable to effects of occlusal loading forces as well as the physiochemical breaking that occurs during stress corrosion. Numerous reasons, based on accepted engineering principles, indicate that NCL should be restored. It is incumbent on dentists to become cognizant of these reasons, since this would help them inform patients of the benefits to be gained by restoring such deficient areas.