Brushing Teeth and Recession

J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 10461061 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01149.
Review Article
Does tooth brushing inuence the development and progression of non-inammatory gingival recession? A systematic review
Rajapakse PS, McCracken GI, Gwynnett E, Steen ND, Guentsch A, Heasman PA. Does tooth brushing inuence the development and progression of non-inammatory gingival recession? A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 10461061. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01149.x. Abstract Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to produce the best available evidence and pool appropriate data to evaluate the effect of tooth brushing on the initiation and progression of non-inammatory gingival recession. Material and Methods: A protocol was developed a priori for the question: Do factors associated with tooth brushing predict the development and progression of non-inammatory gingival recession in adults? The search covered six electronic databases between January 1966 and July 2005. Hand searching included searches of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and the Journal of Periodontology. Bibliographies of narrative reviews, conference proceedings and relevant texts known to the authors were also searched. Inclusion of titles, abstracts and ultimately full texts was based on consensus between three reviewers. Results: The full texts of 29 papers were read and 18 texts were eligible for inclusion. One abstract from EuroPerio 5 reported a randomized-controlled clinical trial [Level I evidence] in which the authors concluded that the toothbrushes signicantly reduced recessions on buccal tooth surfaces over 18 months. Of the remaining 17 observational studies, two concluded that there appeared to be no relationship between tooth brushing frequency and gingival recession. Eight studies reported a positive association between tooth brushing frequency and recession. Other potential risk factors were duration of tooth brushing, brushing force, frequency of changing the toothbrush, brush (bristle) hardness and tooth brushing technique. None of the observational studies satised all the specied criteria for quality appraisal and a valid appraisal of the quality of the randomized-controlled trial was not possible. Conclusion: The data to support or refute the association between tooth brushing and gingival recession are inconclusive.
P. Sunethra Rajapakse1, Giles I. McCracken2, Erika Gwynnett2, Nick D. Steen2, Arndt Guentsch3 and Peter A. Heasman2
1 University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; 2Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; 3Friedrich-Schiller Universitat, Jena, Germany
Key words: gingival recession; tooth brushing Accepted for publication 27 August 2007
Conict of interest and source of funding statement
This systematic review was supported by a research grant from Philips Oral Healthcare (Snoqualmie, WA, USA). The grant enabled funding for the primary researchers post for 6 months. The authors consider that there is no direct conict of interest with this collaboration, particularly
as commercially sponsored investigations with the primary aim of comparing the efcacy of different toothbrushes were excluded from the review. Further, the protocol was designed as an investigators own study. The authors have not contributed to or authored any of the papers included in the review.
Gingival recession, exposure of the root surface due to apical migration of the gingival margin, affects a signicant proportion of the adult population and its presence among subjects with a good standard of oral hygiene suggests that the aetiology of the condition may often involve anatomical and iatrogenic factors in addition to being associated with pathology such as gingivitis and periodontitis (Litonjua et al. 2003).
1046
r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard
Tooth brushing and gingival recession

The possibility that improper tooth brushing or toothbrush trauma may be at least one contributing factor towards this multifactorial condition has been recognized for many years (Boyle 1950, Miller 1950, Gorman 1967), although classical periodontal texts of the time recognized that additional factors, primarily tooth malalignment and alveolar bone thinning, may also predispose to non-inammatory gingival recession (Glickman 1964). Positive associations between recession and both increasing age (Kitchin 1941, Gorman 1967, Loe et al. 1978, 1992, Serino et al. 1994, Brown et al. 1996, Sangnes & Gjermo 1976) and good oral hygiene (OLeary et al. 1968, 1971, Loe et al. 1992, Serino et al. 1994) tend to implicate further the signicant and primary role of tooth brushing in the aetiology of recession, while recognizing that tooth brushing itself is associated with a number of potentially confounding variables such as pressure, time, bristle type and the dentifrice used. A more exacting association between tooth brushing variables and gingival abrasion and erosion has been explored in short-term clinical studies (Sangnes 1976, Breitenmoser et al. 1979, Axell & Koch 1982, Niemi et al. 1984, Smukler & Landsberg 1984) and in longitudinal, but again short-term, studies of manual and powered toothbrushes (Baab & Johnson 1989, Walsh et al. 1989, Johnson & McInnes 1994, Terezhalmy et al. 1994, van der Weijden et al. 1994, Heasman et al. 1999). The extent, however, to which the development of minor gingival abrasions is meaningful and relevant to the development of frank gingival recession remains unclear and controversial (Addy & Hunter 2003). Thus, while factors associated with tooth brushing are commonly believed to be risk factors for gingival recession, the extent to which these factors or indeed any individuals tooth brushing prole are able to predict with condence the development of gingival recession appears to be unknown. The aim of this systematic review was to search for the best available evidence to evaluate the potential role of tooth brushing in the initiation and progression of non-inammatory, localized gingival recession. members of the research team. The focused question for the review was: Do factors associated with tooth brushing predict the development and progression of non-inammatory gingival recession in adults? At the outset of this review, no attempt was made to separate specic variables associated with tooth brushing such as pressure, time spent brushing, bristle type (stiffness and end-shape), lament characteristics or the use of a dentifrice.
Criteria for including and excluding studies
1047
The protocol indicated that studies to be included in the review would follow the hierarchical structure: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [Level I]; experimental studies without randomization (CTs) [Level II]; observational studies with control groups (cohort studies, case control studies) [Level II]; observational studies without control groups (crosssectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series) [Level III]; and case reports/expert opinion [Level IV]. There was some initial concern regarding the likelihood of discovering Level I evidence (RCTs or CTs) that addressed the focused question and it was decided a priori that the threshold for inclusion for soundness of design be Level III. Inclusion criteria for the studies were recruitment of human subjects or patients, clinical examination to determine the extent of gingival recession and/or tooth brushing practice, an evaluation of gingival recession and an evaluation of factors that might be associated with the development and/or progression of gingival recession. The following were excluded from the review: animal studies; studies looking at gingival abrasion or erosion (rather than gingival recession); toothbrush comparison studies; studies involving children as participants; studies involving patients with periodontal diseases; commercially sponsored investigations with the primary aim of comparing the efcacy of different toothbrushes with respect to plaque removal and gingivitis resolution; and histological studies including scanning electron microscopy.
Search strategy
systematic reviews (Khan et al. 2001). The search was unrestricted with respect to languages. The search covered six electronic databases for the period between January 1966 and July 2005: Medline; Embase; Web of Knowledge; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Current Contents Connect; and the Google Scholar search engine. The principal root term for the search was toothbrush$ and the search terms [with adjacency functions where relevant] were: tooth brushing; dental devices; oral hygiene; toothbrush$.mp; toothbrush$ [adj3] pressure; toothbrush$ [adj3] force; toothbrush$ [adj3] techniques; toothbrush$ [adj3] toothpaste; toothbrush$ [adj3] frequency; toothbrush$ [adj3] design$; toothbrush$ [adj3] texture$; toothbrush$ [adj3] bristle$; gingival recession; gingival [adj3] recession; gingival [adj3] abrasion; gingival [adj3] trauma; and gingival [adj3] lesions, together with combinations of the above. Hand searching included searches of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (19742005), Journal of Periodontal Research (19662005) and the Journal of Periodontology (19662005), although these journals will also have been included in the electronic searches. Bibliographies of narrative review articles and relevant texts known to the authors, World and European Workshops, were also searched by hand. The abstracts of EuroPerio 5 that were published by the Journal of Clinical Periodontology as supplement 7 of volume 33 were searched by hand. The editors of the Journals of Periodontology and Journals of Clinical Periodontology were contacted to identify whether any papers specic to this review had been accepted for publication.
Method of the review and validity assessment
Material and Methods
A protocol was developed a priori following initial discussion between all
The search strategy was developed with the assistance of a senior health services librarian (E. G.) and in accordance with published guidance for undertaking of
Titles and abstracts from the electronic searches were managed by downloading EndNote software. EndNote 7 was used to search remote databases, to import the reference data and to manage the imported references. The titles and abstracts were all in English and were screened independently by three reviewers (P. S. R., P. A. H. and G. I. McC.). The selection criteria were applied to a subgroup of potentially relevant studies to identify areas of disagreement and lack of clarity in the
1048
Rajapakse et al.
tional data or for clarication of data that may have appeared to be unclear. Level I assessment of quality was based on ve criteria with the overall aim of assessing methodological quality, bias, internal and external validity, training and calibration of the examiners. drop-outs and participants who were lost to follow-up. Level III assessment of quality for the observational studies was made independently by two reviewers (P. A. H., G. I. McC.) according to fullment of eight specic criteria (in each instance, the assessment was made using the dichotomous response adequate/inadequate or yes/no). Was the cohort considered to be a valid and adequate representation of the wider, relevant population? Was the population under observation explicitly and adequately dened? Were explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria adequately dened? Was there evidence of training and calibration of the examiners and reproducibility testing during the observational period? Was, if applicable, completeness of follow-up adequately reported? Were appropriate statistical methods used? Was a practical, in vivo assessment (rather than questionnaires) made of tooth brushing practice and/or factors or variables associated with tooth brushing? Was a method for measuring or assessing gingival recession reported? k scores and 95% condence intervals (CIs) for inter-reviewer agreement were calculated for each aspect of the assessment.
protocol, and more specically in the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of all studies reported in English that potentially might have been included were also reviewed by three reviewers against the stated inclusion criteria. Full texts reported in languages other than English were each reviewed by a single reviewer. Papers in the German language were reviewed, and data were extracted by one of the authors (A. G.). The Spanish and Greek papers were reviewed, partly translated and data were extracted by periodontal colleagues in or from those countries. (Data extraction was always completed before a decision was made by one of the authors regarding whether the article should be included in the review.) Inclusion of titles, abstracts and ultimately full texts was based initially on consensus of full agreement between all three reviewers. In those cases where two of the three reviewers agreed on inclusion, the nal decision was only made following discussion among the reviewers. If any missing data or information were identied, an attempt was made to contact the author(s) of the publication. Data were extracted from the full-text articles using a purposely designed data extraction form. This form recorded study title, authors, country in which the research was carried out, type of study, randomization and blinding, duration of study, objectives, clinical measurements at baseline and followup (where appropriate), statistical ndings and conclusions.
Assessment of methodological quality
Method of randomization
Randomization was considered to be adequate if it was determined using a method of chance such as tossing a coin, a table of random numbers or a computer-generated sequence. Any other method, such as alternate assignment, was considered inadequate as was failure of the authors to refer to a method of randomization in the text.
Allocation concealment
This was considered to be adequate when it was clearly stated that the randomization sequence was concealed entirely from the examiners. Partial concealment or attempted concealment of a randomized assignment was considered to be inadequate and an assessment of unclear was made if there was no mention of concealment.
Blinding
Blinding of examiners and participants (to protect against both performance and measurement bias) was assessed, although it is recognized that blinding participants to interventions such as tooth brushing is unlikely and, depending on the design of the trial, is often impossible.
The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using separate criteria for the Level I and Level III studies. Individual components of quality were assessed rather than using summary scores and no attempt was made to blind the reviewers to names of authors, institutions and journals while making the assessments. In the rst instance, the assessment instruments were both piloted on papers that had been excluded from the review. The assessment criteria were formulated into two checklists for Level I and III studies, respectively, and based on the quality criteria for experimental and observational studies reported by Khan et al. (2001) (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). No attempt was made to contact any authors of the observational studies to obtain missing or addi-
Results
Search results
Completeness of follow-up
Completeness of follow-up was considered to be adequate if the numbers of participants were reported both at baseline/entry and at completion of the trial, and any drop-outs were accounted for and the reasons were reported. Failure to report these data and information led to an assignment of inadequate.
Intention-to-treat analysis
In order to protect against attrition bias, intention-to-treat was assessed as being adequate when reported or, if it was clear from the data analysis presented in the paper. An assessment was made as to whether the analysis accounted for
The ow of articles through the review process is presented in Fig. 1. (The full search strategy showing the number of articles retrieved by each term is given in Appendix A.) The electronic and manual search strategy produced 831 titles and 121 abstracts were screened. The full or available texts of 29 papers were obtained and read, and 18 texts were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the review. Of these 18 texts, 14 were written in the English language, two in German, one in Greek and one in Spanish. The data extraction for the papers written in German was performed by one researcher (A. G.). The data extraction for the remaining papers was performed by colleagues of
1049
Electronic and manual searches
Screening titles n = 831 Excluded titles n = 711
presented as an abstract at EuroPerio 5 was the only prospective, randomized, single-blind, parallel design clinical trial (Level I evidence) identied and included in the review (Dorfer et al. 2006). It was considered that because of the immense heterogeneity of the studies, their aims, design, cohorts of participants and methods of recording and reporting observations, a sophisticated level of data combination and analysis was neither possible nor indicated. A meta-analysis was, therefore, not undertaken.
Methodological quality
Screening abstracts n = 120
Level I evidence
The literature scoping identied only one paper that reported a RCT that comprised Level I evidence. The study was reported as a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, parallel design clinical trial (Dorfer et al. 2006). The information available, specically with respect to the method of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of examiners, statistical analysis and completeness of follow-up, did not allow an adequate appraisal of quality and this was therefore assigned to be unclear. There was no evidence of calibration of examiners or reproducibility testing throughout the trial period. Repeated attempts were made to contact the author but no response was received. Contact with the editors of the two journals considered to be the most likely for publication of the data revealed no similar titles being in press and so access to a full text of the paper was not possible.
Excluded abstracts n = 91
Screening articles n = 29
Excluded texts n = 11 Articles included in the review n = 18

Fig. 1. Flow of articles through review
those nationalities. One abstract from EuroPerio 5 was included in the review. The abstract itself provided only limited information, but discussion with the lead author during a poster presentation provided sufcient evidence for the trial to be included in the review. The reasons for excluding 11 articles are given in the relevant section of the bibliography to the review.
Study characteristics
The characteristics of the 18 studies included in this review are shown in the data Table 1. The earliest reported study in the review was published in 1976 and the most recent was reported in 2006. All studies reported the number of subjects/participants/patients who were recruited, and only one article failed to report data on ages (Benz et al. 1987).
Seventeen of the articles did not report a clinical trial that explored a null hypothesis using tooth brushing or any controlled element of tooth brushing as an intervention; none of these 17 studies, therefore, was either randomized or controlled. Seventeen studies were classied as being observational in design (Level III) although three studies reported clinical observations that were made over different time points (Paloheimo et al. 1987, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Serino et al. 1994). Two studies made observations in groups of rst- and nal-year dental students but these were separate populations rather than reporting data on the same group at different time points (Checchi et al. 1999, Wilckens et al. 2003). One study assessed directly tooth brushing parameters that were correlated with gingival recession lesions and the design most closely reected a cohort study (Benz et al. 1987). The trial
Level III evidence

Eleven studies were considered to have recruited populations that, although were adults, could not be considered to be representative of the general population (k 0.92, CI 0.910.99): one study excluded subjects who were faulty brushers (Tezel et al. 2001); four studies recruited only small numbers of between 25 and 55 subjects (Benz et al. 1987, Goutoudi et al. 1997, Checchi et al. 1999, Tsami-Pandi & Komboli-Kontovazeniti 1999); and seven studies recruited participants from only younger age groups such as dental students (Murtomaa et al. 1987, Paloheimo et al. 1987, Frentzen et al. 1989, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Checchi et al. 1999,
1050
Table 1. Summary of studies included in the review: principles of design and demographics
Aim Sample characteristics (age range) Hierarchal assignment leveln Assessments Data presentation with specic reference to tooth brushing factors
Study Language
Funding
Rajapakse et al.
Randomized-controlled clinical trial Dorfer et al. (2006) Oral-B Laboratories English To observe recession changes after 12 months clinical use of powered and manual toothbrushes Clinical examination of recession: probing depths and attachment loss Clinical examination. Computer recording of tooth brushing parameters: time, frequency, force To correlate physical attributes of tooth brushing with the presence of gingival recession University dental hospital population. 25 patients with gingival recession (no ages given) Observational/ cohortz 109 healthy volunteers with at least one buccal site with gingival recession (Mean age 33[10] years) Experimental/ randomizedcontrolled trialw
GR was signicantly reduced at buccal sites of cohort using powered toothbrushes (1.58 0.68 mm) and in the cohort using the manual toothbrushes (1.280.54 mm) (po0.001) Signicant correlation between the incidence of localized, non-inamed GR and maximal brushing force. The correlation between the number of GR defects and demonstrated here graphically with r 5 0.7 Those with GR, on average, brushed more frequently than those with no GR. No GR approximately 26% brushed 1/day approximately 15% brushed 42/day GR approximately 17% brushed 1/day approximately 28% brushed42/day 69% of females and 49% of males had GR. The average depth of lesion was 1.5 (0.5) mm. There was no signicant correlation between frequency of tooth brushing or handedness (left/right) with incidence of GR
Cohort study Benz et al. (1987) German
Unspecied
Cross-sectional studies Sangnes & Gjermo (1976) English To study the prevalence of soft and hard tissue lesions and to correlate their presence with oral hygiene status and tooth brushing habits Investigation of overall periodontal status of university students 217 university students (2526 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz 533 referred dental patients and industrial workers invited to attend for clinical examination (418 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz
Unspecied
Clinical examination. Record of tooth brushing behaviour
Murtomaa et al. (1987) English
Unspecied
Clinical examination. Record of tooth brushing habits
Paloheimo et al. (1987) English
Unspecied
To determine the association between gingival recession and oral hygiene practices
360 adolescents (1520 years)
Observational/ cross-sectional study but with 4-year, longitudinal element with data collected on 3 occasions: 1978, 1981, 1982z
Clinical examination. Questionnaire to collect data on tooth brushing habits
GR was identied in 10% of 1517-year-olds and in 52% of 1820-year-olds There was a tendency towards a higher frequency of tooth brushing in the GR group (po0.2) but those subjects who changed their toothbrush more often had signicantly more GR (po0.01). The relative proportions of those with GR according to tooth brushing were: Vertical 79%, horizontal 49%, unspecied 33% (po0.05) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Questionnaire on tooth brushing behaviour 76.9% of subjects had no GR, 4.2% had inammatory-based GR and 18.9% GR with no inammation. 44% of subjects who used a vertical tooth-brushing technique had GR compared with 23% prevalence in those who used another method (no statistical analysis provided)

To correlate gingival recession with tooth brushing behaviour in young adults 1000 recruits to armed forces (1822 years)
Frentzen et al. (1989) German
Unspecied
Table 1. (Contd.)
Aim Sample characteristics (age range) 258 Finnish adults recruited for nationwide survey (430 years) Clinical examination. Information on tooth brushing recorded at health interviews Observational/ cross-sectionalz Hierarchal assignment leveln Assessments Data presentation with specic reference to tooth brushing factors 68% of subjects had at least one site of GR. GR more prevalent in older subjects (po0.05). Those who brushed 41/day had an odds ratio of 2.1 for GR. Subjects who brushed more frequently had a greater number of mean sites with GR but this was statistically signicant in females Frequency of tooth brushing o1/d 1/d 42/d To establish an association between potential aetiological factors and gingival recession Observation of tooth brushing behaviour and practice. Clinical examination. Interview 137 attending dental services who had previously been recruited into a study of periodontal conditions in 16-year-olds (18 years) 182 subjects participating in ongoing dental studies (1865 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Record of toothbrush type. Record of dominant hand Observational/ cross-sectional but with observations at 2 time pointsz Mean no. of surfaces with GR 2.7 7.6 7.7 76% of subjects showed more GR than they had previously and 36% showed progression of 41 mm. Factors associated with tooth brushing were analysed but there was no relationship between these factors and buccal attachment loss Subjects using hard toothbrushes had signicantly more mean surfaces of GR (1993) (4.5) than those who did not (2.3) (po0.001). Only in those who used hard bristle brushes did the % of surfaces with GR increase with tooth brushing frequency: % Surfaces 7.3 6.9 14.6 Tooth brushing frequency 1/day 2/day 31/day (r 5 0.214, p 5 0.005) To evaluate the prevalence and progression of attachment loss and gingival recession at buccal tooth surfaces in adults 225 regular dental attendees at community dental clinics (1825 years at baseline) Observational/ cross-sectional study with a longitudinal element with 5- and 12-year follow-upz Clinical examination. Radiographic examination
Study Language To investigate the occurrence of recession in relationship with dental status and frequency of tooth brushing
Funding
Vehkalahti et al. (1989) English
Social Insurance Institution of Finland; Finnish Dental Society; ComPetit Consulting Ltd
Kallestal & Uhlin (1992) English
Swedish Dental Society; Joint Committee of North Health Region of Sweden; Faculty of Odontology, University of Umea To investigate the effect of bristle stiffness and frequency of brushing on the development of gingival recession

Prevalence of GR at baseline 25%. Increase in prevalence at re-examination after 5 and 12 years and greater prevalence of GR with age at any time point. Indirect implication of tooth brushing as an aetiological factor for GR as gingival inammation (inadequate OH) was signicantly and negatively associated with GR (F 5 1.549, R2 5 0.98, p 5 0.0001) 38 patients with gingival recession referred for specialist opinion comparing 50 affected teeth with 50 control teeth without gingival recession (1816 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Questionnaire A signicant relationship between bristle hardness and the severity of GR (F 5 3.9485, p 5 0.0261) To determine the prevalence and signicance of potential contributing factors to gingival recession
Khocht et al. (1993) English
Unspecied
Serino et al. (1994) English
Public Dental Service, Varmland, Sweden; Colgate-Palmolive, NJ, USA; Swedish Medical Research Council
Goutoudi et al. (1997) English
Unspecied
1051
Table 1. (Contd.)
Aim Sample characteristics (age range) Hierarchal assignment leveln Assessments Data presentation with specic reference to tooth brushing factors
1052
Study Language
Funding
Rajapakse et al.
Checchi et al. (1999) English
Unspecied
To determine the prevalence of gingival recession on buccal tooth surfaces in a dental student population
2 groups of dental students (27 1st years; 28 5th years) Clinical examination. Data collection on tooth brushing behaviour
Observational/ cross-sectional but with observations at 2 time pointsz
The nal year students had 38% of recessions 42 mm compared with 15% with rst year students. Horizontal, vertical or rotary tooth brushing techniques (simple) were associated with 2.22 more GR lesions when compared with Bass or roll techniques (complex) (p 5 0.013). Each additional episode of tooth brushing per day is associated with 11.07 lesions of GR (R2 5 0.23, p 5 0.016) The most signicant factors identied (in order of importance) as being associated with GR were: age (po0.001), smoking (p 5 0.005) and frequency of tooth brushing (p 5 0.064). There appeared to be no signicant association between other tooth brushing factors and GR: Hardness of the bristles (p 5 0.470), strength of tooth brushing (p 5 0.250) and duration of brushing (p 5 0.392) GR increases with the number of episodes of tooth brushing/day: Frequency Percentage of subjects 26.1% 40.0%
Tsami-Pandi & KomboliKontovazeniti (1999) Greek
Unspecied Clinical examination
To correlate the severity of gingival recession with aetiological factors
32 subjects with anterior sites of gingival recession (2738 years)
Observational/ cross-sectionalz
Arowojolu (2000) English 491 consecutive patients referred to university periodontal clinic (1882 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz
Unspecied
To determine prevalence of gingival recession and to associate with aetiological factors
Health interviews. Clinical examination
1/day 2/day (po0.001) Subjects who accentuated horizontal scrub motion (using a chewing stick) had signicantly more GR (29.4%) than those using a toothbrush (22.2%). Subjects using both had almost twice the incidence of GR (57.8%) (p 5 0.004) To assess relationship between gingival recession and tooth brushing frequency, technique, duration and handedness of subject 110 subjects with gingival recession (2045 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Observation of tooth brushing habits GR increases signicantly with tooth brushing frequency and duration. For examples for lefthanded subjects: Mean GR (mm) Males Females o 1 min. 1.4 1.2 4 3 min. 2.6 2.8 (po0.05) 1/day 1.4 1.3 4 3/day 2.8 2.9 (po0.05) Signicantly greater GR in those who used a horizontal tooth brushing technique (means 2.7 mm) compared with those who used a vertical technique (mean 1.6 mm) (po0.05)
Tezel et al. (2001) English
Unspecied
Table 1. (Contd.)
Aim Sample characteristics (age range) Hierarchal assignment leveln Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Data collection of tooth brushing behaviour at interview Assessments Data presentation with specic reference to tooth brushing factors
Study Language
Funding
Carreno et al. (2002) Spanish To associate the presence of plaque and calculus, and tooth brushing behaviour with gingival recession 150 patients attending university medical/dental unit (1867 years)
Unspecied
83.3% of cohort demonstrated GR. 50.4% of subjects used a hard-bristled toothbrush and had signicantly more teeth with GR than those who used either soft (20.8%) or medium (28.8%) brushes (p 5 0.0001). There were signicantly more teeth with GR in a subgroup using a horizontal tooth-brushing technique compared with those using a circular or sweeping movement (p 5 0.0001) Independent predictions of GR: age (p 5 0.0003), tooth-brushing technique (p 5 0.0001) and frequency of changing toothbrush (p 5 0.003). Construction of a bivariate model strategy implication tooth brushing technique as a signicant contributing factor (p 5 0.001)

To compare the prevalence of gingival recession in rst- and nal-year dental students 80 dental students (40 1st years; 40 5th years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Clinical examination. Interview To investigate the inuence of oral hygiene practices on gingival recession 455 medical students (1832 years) Observational/ cross-sectionalz Tooth brushing and tooth brushing parameters recorded by questionnaire Incidence of GR 29.4%. Factors signicantly associated with GR: Frequency of tooth brushing (po0.001) Hardness of bristles (po0.05) Frequency of changing toothbrush (po0.0001) Force of tooth brushing (po0.001) These independent variables had a signicant effect on GR as the dependent variable (F 5 33.556, R2 5 0.041)
Wilckens et al. (2003) English
Unspecied
Kozlowska et al. (2005) English
Unspecied
Levels assigned to evidence based on soundness of design. Experimental studies: RCTs and CTs without randomization. z Observational studies without control groups (cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series). GR, gingival recession; RCT, randomized clinical trial.
1053
1054
Rajapakse et al.
Table 2. Studies grouped by observation of signicant associations between tooth brushing factors and gingival recession Tooth brushing frequency Tooth brushing technique Paloheimo et al. (1987) Checchi et al. (1999) Arowojolu (2000) Tezel et al. (2001) Carreno et al. (2002) Wilckens et al. (2003) Bristle hardness Frequency of changing tooth brush Paloheimo et al. (1987) Wilckens et al. (2003) Kozlowska et al. (2005) Tooth brushing force Benz et al. (1987) Kozlowska et al. (2005) Duration of tooth brushing Tezel et al. (2001)
Vehkalahti et al. (1989) Khocht et al. (1993) Checchi et al. (1999) Tsami-Pandi & KomboliKontovazeniti (1999) Arowojolu (2000) Tezel et al. (2001) Kozlowska et al. (2005)
Khocht et al. (1993) Goutoudi et al. (1997) Carreno et al. (2002) Kozlowska et al. (2005)
Wilckens et al. 2003, Kozlowska et al. 2005). The population under observation was described in all studies (k 0.95, 95% CI 0.920.99) but explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria were described in only two studies (with one of these referring the reader to a previous publication) (Khocht et al. 1993, Serino et al. 1994) (k 0.86, 95% CI 0.820.99). Completeness to follow-up was not relevant in 14 studies (k 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 0.99). Baseline and follow-up data were reported in three studies (Benz et al. 1987, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Serino et al. 1994) and Kallestal & Uhlin (1992) were the only authors to report full reasons for drop-outs. The statistical aspects of 14 studies appeared to be appropriate although this element of the study was either unreported or unclear in three studies (Sangnes & Gjermo 1976, Benz et al. 1987, Frentzen et al. 1989) (k 0.60, 95% CI 0.661.0). A practical, in vivo assessment of tooth brushing factors or variables was only described in two studies (Benz et al. 1987, Goutoudi et al. 1997) (k 0.99, 95% CI 0.990.99). With respect to the assessment and, or validation of the measurement of gingival recession, ve studies used a classication system (Benz et al. 1987, Paloheimo et al. 1987, Frentzen et al. 1989, Goutoudi et al. 1997, Carreno et al. 2002), six studies relied on an observation of recession being present (Sangnes & Gjermo 1976, Murtomaa et al. 1987, Vehkalahti et al. 1989, Khocht et al. 1993, TsamiPandi & Komboli-Kontovazeniti 1999, Arowojolu 2000), three studies reported the use of a periodontal probe in making the assessment (Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Serino et al. 1994, Tezel et al. 2001) and the method was unclear or unreported in three studies (Checchi et al. 1999,
Wilckens et al. 2003, Kozlowska et al. 2005) (k 0.58, 95% CI 0.621.00). Calibration and training of examiners was not reported in the majority (12) of studies. Five studies reported that the clinical measurements had been made by one examiner (Murtomaa et al. 1987, Paloheimo et al. 1987, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Khocht et al. 1993, Goutoudi et al. 1997). Goutoudi et al. reported 95.65% reproducibility for the single examiner measuring within 1 mm for gingival recession. Arowojolu (2000) reported that calibration of examiners was undertaken 23 weeks before clinical observations were made, but no data were published. Serino et al. (1994) reported that three examiners had been trained and calibrated but did not report on the methods. Reproducibility testing for within 1 mm of attachment level measurements and probing depths were reported as being 100% and 97%, respectively. None of the observational studies fullled all eight of the pre-specied quality assessment criteria.
Observations
The single RCT identied in the review recruited 109 healthy subjects who were randomized to one of two experimental interventions: twice-daily tooth brushing for 2 min. using either a powered or a manual toothbrush (Dorfer et al. 2006). The inclusion criterion was for the subjects to have at least one buccal site of visible recession. Over an 18-month follow-up period, the authors reported statistically signicant mean (SE) reductions in gingival recession from 1.58(0.65) to 0.68(0.76) mm for the powered toothbrush group and from 1.28(0.43) to 0.54(0.62) mm in the manual toothbrush
group. The authors concluded that the toothbrushes signicantly reduced recessions on buccal tooth surfaces over the 18-month period. A summary of the main outcomes made in each of the 17 observational studies is presented in Table 1. Further, the studies have been grouped according to observations of association between tooth brushing factors and gingival recession (Table 2). Only the cohort study involved an intervention in which subjects used a computer-assisted toothbrush to record tooth brushing parameters, namely time, frequency and force. Of the 17 articles, only two concluded that there appeared to be no association between tooth brushing frequency and gingival recession (Murtomaa et al. 1987, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992), and indeed Kallestal & Uhlin (1992) observed no association between any tooth brushing factors and gingival recession. This conclusion was based on perceived low validity of subject interviews and observations made in the clinic that may not be representative of tooth brushing habits at home. Eight studies reported an association between tooth brushing frequency and recession (Sangnes & Gjermo 1976, Vehkalahti et al. 1989, Khocht et al. 1993, Checchi et al. 1999, Tsami-Pandi & KomboliKontovazeniti 1999, Arowojolu 2000, Tezel et al. 2001, Kozlowska et al. 2005). Vehkalahti et al. (1989) reported a signicant increased odds ratio of 2.1 for the likelihood of developing gingival recession in those subjects who brush more than once a day over less frequent brushers. The duration of tooth brushing was implicated in only one study in which both males and females who brushed for 43 min. had approximately twice the mean severity of gingival

recession as did those subjects who brushed for o1 min. (Tezel et al. 2001). Tooth brushing force was implicated in two studies (Benz et al. 1987, Kozlowska et al. 2005), although only the study of Benz et al. (1987) was designed scientically to analyse tooth brushing force using hardware specically for the purpose. Kozlowska et al. (2005) concluded that force was signicantly associated with gingival recession although it appears that force was categorized as heavy, medium and weak using only a questionnaire survey. An association with higher standards of oral hygiene was implicated in three studies (Sangnes & Gjermo 1976, Paloheimo et al. 1987, Kozlowska et al. 2005) although this outcome can only be regarded as a surrogate measure of tooth brushing parameters. Other factors suggested as being causal in the development of gingival recession were hardness of the brush or toothbrush bristles (Khocht et al. 1993, Goutoudi et al. 1997, Carreno et al. 2002, Kozlowska et al. 2005) and the frequency of changing the toothbrush (Paloheimo et al. 1987, Wilckens et al. 2003, Kozlowska et al. 2005). Only the study of Serino et al. (1994) was generally inconclusive in that tooth brushing was implicated indirectly as an aetiological factor for gingival recession. Buccal attachment loss was identied in younger subjects with both a high standard of oral hygiene and no history of periodontitis and toothbrush trauma was identied only as a possible contributory factor. recession, originally, over a 12-month period, in otherwise healthy subjects using either a powered (D17U, Oral B Laboratories) or a manual toothbrush (an ADA reference toothbrush). The study was supported and funded by Oral B Laboratories. The 18-month follow-up data were presented in the abstract and revealed that both toothbrushes reduced signicantly the extent of buccal attachment loss and that this effect was apparent even at sites of relatively pronounced gingival recession. Unfortunately, the authors did not respond to later questions (by e-mail) regarding reasons for drop-outs (thus evaluating attrition bias) nor did they give reasons or present a hypothesis as to why the mean gingival recession decreased in each group over the 18 months of the study. These observations were in conict with the general evidence and conclusions that could be drawn from the 17 observational studies; that is, that one or more of a range of factors associated with tooth brushing is likely to be causative (rather than reparative) for non-inammatory lesions of gingival recession. One confounding element that may compromise a randomized-controlled trial, however, is the Hawthorne effect, which may contribute to performance bias (which may also have been inuenced by the single-blind nature of the design). Thus, for example, with the knowledge that they are participating in a clinical trial, the subjects may have made a signicant effort to improve their standard of plaque control, irrespective of the treatment group to which they had been randomized. Similarly, in this particular trial, the oral hygiene advice may have corrected a previously damaging tooth brushing technique. This, together with the resolution of even a minimal degree of gingival inammation, may have encouraged an element of creeping buccal attachment that is more usually seen after mucogingival surgery, and certainly the magnitude of the mean changes observed (approximately 0.70.9 mm) would be consistent with such an effect (Bernimoulin et al. 1975, Kennedy et al. 1985). This, however, is hypothesis, and it is equally possible that there may have been an element of measurement bias in a study in which there was no control group that did not receive an intervention. On a more general point, however, evidence from systematic reviews has identied conicting results from observational
1055
Discussion
The search uncovered predominantly observational (cross-sectional) studies, which, by design, are unable to determine causation between the risk factor and outcome. The evidence gathered to answer the focused question was evaluated only as being of low or modest quality and unfortunately, the limited information available from the single randomized-controlled trial meant that a condent appraisal of quality was not possible. Evidence from this one randomizedcontrolled trial was identied and although this was published initially as an abstract, further information was forthcoming from the authors through personal communication and discussion. The aim of the study was to observe the change in severity of buccal gingival
studies and randomized-controlled trials (Kunz & Oxman 1998), and it has been suggested that selection bias or selection by prognosis may compromise the value of observational studies that are designed to evaluate therapy or treatment (Vandenbroucke 2004). Further, it may be argued that tooth brushing is a lifestyle behaviour rather than a treatment and again, because of selection bias or other confounding factors and selections of usual care, will be notoriously difcult to study with observational studies. The evidence from the 17 observational studies was of poor quality but nevertheless was relatively consistent in implicating one or more of a range of tooth brushing factors that are likely to be aetiological for gingival recession: duration and frequency of tooth brushing, tooth brushing force, hardness of the bristles, tooth brushing technique and the frequency of changing a toothbrush. None of these studies (by denition) involved introducing, or even modifying an intervention that would impact on tooth brushing behaviour and therefore gingival recession. Further, the proposed link between the standard of oral hygiene and gingival recession (Sangnes & Gjermo 1976, Paloheimo et al. 1987) must, however, be considered with some caution as plaque control is essentially a surrogate measure for tooth brushing and specic tooth brushing parameters were not observed directly. There were three studies in the review that were of a longitudinal nature (Paloheimo et al. 1987, Kallestal & Uhlin 1992, Serino et al. 1994) but these were classied as being observational studies as they involved recordings being made over different time points rather than including an intervention with follow-up, as would be the case in a randomized-controlled clinical trial. A further observation that should be considered when drawing conclusions from these data is the characteristics of the subjects who were recruited. The majority (10) of the studies in this review recruited patients or regular dental attenders whose ages ranged between 16 and 82 years. Gingival recession is reported as being positively associated with increasing age (Serino et al. 1994, Tsami-Pandi & Komboli-Kontovazeniti 1999, Arowojolu 2000, Wilckens et al. 2003), suggesting that future longitudinal studies addressing the role of tooth brushing in gingival recession will need to consider age as a potential confounding factor.
1056
Rajapakse et al.
be made for unmeasured confounding variables (Khan et al. 2001). Having considered carefully the evidence from this review, the limited number of included studies and the quality of the data permit us to make only three conclusions within the limit of the protocol and the focused question. We have also, however, evaluated the conclusions made by the authors of the included papers and have noted the identication of signicant gaps in this area of clinical research. time, method, type of brush, duration and bristle hardness. More than one variable could be assessed by using multiple parallel groups. Potential confounding factors such as crowding and a history of orthodontic treatment need to be controlled. Target sites of incipient gingival recession could be monitored over a period of 12 years and specic exit criteria need to be adopted to maintain an ethical approach to the concept of exposing patients to increased risk of deterioration. Compliance with factors such as time of brushing and force would be a challenge but not insurmountable as current technology, particularly for powered toothbrushes, allows for standardization of such factors as well as individual data monitoring using data logger technology.
We acknowledge that the quality of the database that was formulated from the 17 observational/cross-sectional studies compromises signicantly the condence with which we are able to make conclusions and recommendations. These observational studies were not of an association between an outcome (gingival recession) and changes in one characteristic of the intervention (tooth brushing) but rather observations of individuals and groups where little or no attempt had been made to standardize potential confounding factors such as age, tissue biotype and previous orthodontic treatment. There is, however, a view that studies of risk factors (for whatever condition) should not be randomized in design, primarily because they relate to inherent human characteristics and because exposing participants to unnecessary risk is unethical (Lipsett & Campleman 1999, Stroup et al. 2000). The argument of an issue embedded in clinical and research ethics is not within the scope of this review although even high-quality observational studies with clear statements of hypothesis, standardization of design, heterogeneity of populations, quality control, description of outcomes and statistics may enable a more robust approach that allows meta-analysis of the outcome data and then greater condence can be afforded to the conclusions. This is the rst published systematic review that has explored the association between tooth brushing and gingival recession and we recognize that there are limitations to the project. The absence of randomized-controlled clinical trials does not necessarily compromise the quality of data available, although making rm conclusions about the effect of an intervention (tooth brushing) is more difcult when: the variables associated with the intervention are not controlled; other confounding aetiological factors are uncontrolled; there are no control groups in the trial and with particular reference to gingival recession; and there are too few long-term studies. The potential for performance bias in the single RCT has already been discussed and it is further recognized that observational studies (17/18 in this review) are vulnerable to selection bias, inherent when adjustments cannot
Conclusions
Based on the studies included in this review, we conclude that: The data to support or refute the association between tooth brushing and gingival recession are inconclusive. Tooth brushing factors that have been associated with the development and progression of gingival recession are duration and frequency of brushing, technique, brushing force, frequency of changing toothbrushes and hardness of the bristles. There is limited evidence from one randomized, controlled, clinical trial to suggest that tooth brushing with either a powered or a manual toothbrush and with standardized instructions in tooth brushing technique may reduce the severity of gingival recession of non-inammatory lesions.
Recommendation for research
Recommendations for clinical practice
The review failed to identify a randomized, controlled, clinical trial that was designed specically to evaluate the effect of one or more tooth brushing factors in the development and progression of gingival recession while controlling for confounding factors. Such a study, or an observational study of high quality, will almost certainly contribute better evidence to substantiate the observation that tooth brushing factors are contributory, rather than just associated with non-inammatory gingival recession. A prospective randomized-controlled clinical trial would need to evaluate a factor or factors associated with tooth brushing (for example force) while controlling for the remaining factors such as
The duration and frequency of tooth brushing have been implicated most often as being causal for gingival recession but the available evidence does not conrm or refute that these are indeed the most important aetiological factors. While any level of uncertainty remains, it is important to assess tooth brushing duration and frequency on an individual patient basis, and a more complete prole of tooth brushing should include as assessment of tooth brushing technique, bristle hardness and frequency of changing the toothbrush. There is limited evidence to suggest that effective tooth brushing using either a conventional manual or a powered toothbrush may help to resolve buccal attachment loss. Until the evidence for these ndings is reproduced, it is recommended that clinicians continue to reassure patients with established gingival recession that these lesions may be stabilized but not necessarily resolved by modifying tooth brushing behaviour.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Gwen Forster and Lyndsey Dvaz for their assistance in preparing the manuscript and Mariano Sanz for his invaluable help in translating and extracting data from Spanish articles.

References
Articles included in the review
1057
Arowojolu, M. O. (2000) Gingival recession at the University College Hospital, Ibadan prevalence and effect of some aetiological factors. African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 29, 259263. Benz, C., Schwarz, P. & Sonnabend, E. (1987) Various physical parameters of toothbrushing and their relation to the appearance of non-inammatory gingival recession. Das rzteblatt 96, 930935. Deutsche Zahna Carreno, R. E. S., Carmen Rosa Salazar, V. & Gudino, M. P. d. (2002) Factores Precipitantes En El Desarrollo De Recesion Gingival. Acta gica Venezolana 40, 129136. Odontolo Checchi, L., Daprile, G., Gatto, M. R. & Pelliccioni, G. A. (1999) Gingival recession and toothbrushing in an Italian School of Dentistry: a pilot study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 26, 276280. Dorfer, C. E., Jor, D., Rau, P. & Wolff, D. (2006) The 18-month effect of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush on recession. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 33 (Suppl. 7), 98. Frentzen, M., Pfafe, W. & Nolden, R. (1989) Gingival recession in young adults after intensive oral hygiene? Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 44, 373374. Goutoudi, P., Koidis, P. T. & Konstantinidis, A. (1997) Gingival recession: a cross-sectional clinical investigation. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 5, 5761. Kallestal, C. & Uhlin, S. (1992) Buccal attachment loss in Swedish adolescents. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 19, 485491. Khocht, A., Simon, G., Person, P. & Denepitiya, J. L. (1993) Gingival recession in relation to history of hard toothbrush use. Journal of Periodontology 64, 900905. Kozlowska, M., Wawrzyn-Sobczak, K., Karczewski, J. K. & Stokowska, W. (2005) The oral hygiene as the basic element of the gingival recession prophylaxis. Roczniki Akademii Medycznej w Bialymstoku 50, 234237. Murtomaa, H., Meurman, J. H., Rytomaa, I. & Turtola, L. (1987) Periodontal status in university students. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 14, 462465. Paloheimo, L., Ainamo, J., Niemi, M. L. & Viikinkoski, M. (1987) Prevalence of and factors related to gingival recession in Finnish 15- to 20-year old subjects. Community Dental Health 4, 425436. Sangnes, G. & Gjermo, P. (1976) Prevalence of oral soft tissue and hard tissue lesions related to mechanical toothcleaning procedures. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 4, 7783. Serino, G., Wennstrom, J. L., Lindhe, J. & Eneroth, L. (1994) The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession in subjects with a high standard of oral hygiene. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 21, 5763. Tezel, A., Canakci, V., Cicek, Y. & Demir, T. (2001) Evaluation of gingival recession in left- and right-handed adults. International Journal of Neuroscience 110, 135146.
Tsami-Pandi, A. & Komboli-Kontovazeniti, M. (1999) Association between the severity of gingival recession and possible factors responsible for their presence. Stomatological Society of Greece 56, 125133. Vehkalahti, M. (1989) Occurrence of gingival recession in adults. Journal of Periodontology 60, 599603. Wilckens, M., Merino, J. M. & Rios, M. (2003) Gingival recession and toothbrushing in students of dental school. Journal of Dental Research 82, 303.
Articles read and excluded from the review together with reasons for their exclusion
Abbas, F., Schoo, W. H., Timmerman, M. & Van der Velden, U. (2002) Gingival recession a 20 year follow-up evaluation. Journal of Dental Research 81, B275B275. Insufcient information and poor quality. Further information from authors not forthcoming. Report of longitudinal data associating gingival recession with time but no reference to tooth brushing as an aetiological factor. Andlin-Sobocki, A., Marcusson, A. & Persson, M. (1991) 3-year observations on gingival recession in mandibular incisors in children. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 18, 155159. Aim of study not directly associated with tooth brushing. Age group not including adults 418 years. Longitudinal assessment of gingival recession over 3-year period but no observations with respect to tooth brushing. Breitenmoser, J., Mormann, W. & Muhlemann, H. R. (1979) Damaging effects of toothbrush bristle end form on gingiva. Journal of Periodontology 50, 212216. Predominantly looking at gingival abrasions and epithelial damage rather than gingival recession. Short-term study. Carlos, M. C., Muyco, M. M., Caliwag, M. C., Fajardo, J. A. & Uy, H. G. (1995) The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession among U.E. dental students with a high standard of oral hygiene. Journal of the Philippine Dental Association 47, 2748. Reported association between tooth brushing and gingival recession but no indication about how tooth brushing was evaluated or assessed. Kleber, B. M. (1991) Localized periodontal recession only caused by the chronic brushing trauma? Parodontologie 2, 235243. Report of severity of gingival recession in young adults and a conclusion that tooth brushing is important as an aetiological factor. No basis for the statement and no data on toothbrushing that would justify such a conclusion. Poor quality. Mathur, R. M., Chawla, T. N., Kapoor, K. K. & Mathur, M. N. (1969) A study of gingival recession as related to oral cleaning habits. Journal of the Indian Dental Association 41, 159162. Compared effectiveness of toothbrush with other habits: use of nger and twigs. Poor quality study with virtually no information in methods section regarding
assessment of tooth brushing. No statistics, only trends reported. Mierau, H. D. & Fiebig, A. (1986) The epidemiology of gingival recession and possible clinical accompanying symptoms. Study of 2410 18-22-year-old patients (1). Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 41, 640644. Predominantly looking at acute soft tissue lesions. A reported socio-economic relationship to the distribution of gingival recession led to conclusion that too vigorous tooth brushing generates gingival recession but lack of clear denition of tooth brushing techniques. Poor quality. Mierau, H. D. & Fiebig, A. (1987) Epidemiology of gingiva recession and potential accompanying clinical phenomena. Study of 2410 recruits between 18 and 20 years of age. Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 42, 512 520. Predominantly looking at acute soft tissue lesions. A reported socio-economic relationship to the distribution of gingival recession led to conclusion that too vigorous tooth brushing generates gingival recession but lack of clear denition of tooth brushing techniques. Poor quality. Mierau, H. D., Haubitz, I. & Volk, W. (1989) Habit patterns in the use of the manual toothbrush 1. Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 44, 836841. Short-term study of acute soft tissue lesions rather than abrasion. Very basic denition of tooth brushing methods. OLeary, T. J., Drake, R. B., Jividen, G. J. & Allen, M. F. (1967) The incidence of recession in young males: relationship to gingival and plaque scores. Tech Rep SAM-TR 1-4. Population groups also had varying degrees of periodontitis. Authors conclude that an association between incorrect or too vigorous tooth brushing and gingival recession is implicated but the study can neither prove nor disprove this. But association of gingival recession only made with plaque and gingivitis. No mention of tooth brushing factors at all. Powell, R. N. & McEniery, T. M. (1982) A longitudinal study of isolated gingival recession in the mandibular central incisor region of children aged 68 years. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 9, 357364. Predominantly study of recession associated with crowding rather than tooth brushing. Age group does not include adults.
Additional screened titles and abstracts not included in the review
Adams, C., Slack-Smith, L., Larson, A. & OGrady, M. (2004) Dental visits in older Western Australians: a comparison of urban, rural and remote residents. Australian Journal of Rural Health 12, 143149. Addy, M. & Hunter, M. L. (2003) Can tooth brushing damage your health? Effects on oral and dental tissues. International Dental Journal 53 (Suppl. 3), 177186. Agudio, G., Pini Prato, G., Cortellini, P. & Parma, S. (1987) Gingival lesions caused by improper oral hygiene measures. Interna-
1058
Rajapakse et al.
mechanical plaque removal devices. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control. Status of the Art and Science of Dental Plaque Control, pp. 268 278. Echeverria, J. J., Lasa, I. & Ramon Boj, J. (1994) Compulsive brushing in an adolescent patient: case report. Pediatric Dentistry 16, 443445. Gherunpong, S., Tsakos, G. & Sheiham, A. (2004) The prevalence and severity of oral impacts on daily performances in Thai primary school children. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2, 8. Gillette, W. B. & Van House, R. L. (1980) Ill effects of improper oral hygeine procedure. Journal of the American Dental Association 101, 476480. Goodman, S. F. (1995) Re: Gingival recession: intra-oral distribution and associated factors [comment]. Journal of Periodontology 66, 310311. Gorman, W. J. (1967) Prevalence and etiology of gingival recession. Journal of Periodontology 38, 316322. He, T., Carpinello, L., Baker, R., Knippenberg, S., Das, A., Winston, L. & McClanahan, S. (2001) Safety of three toothbrushes. American Journal of Dentistry 14, 12326. Hosanguan, C., Ungchusak, C., Leelasithorn, S. & Prasertsom, P. (2002) The extent and correlates of gingival recession in non-institutionalised Thai elderly. Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology 4, 143148. Hunter, M. L., Addy, M., Pickles, M. J. & Joiner, A. (2002) The role of toothpastes and toothbrushes in the aetiology of tooth wear. International Dental Journal 52, 399 405. Iwakami, K. & Watanabe, Y. (1989) Gingival response by the effect of brushing method and hardness of the toothbrush bristle. Journal of Meikai University School of Dentistry 18, 244266. Jepsen, S. (1998) The role of manual toothbrushes in effective plaque control: Advantages and limitations. Paper presented at the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control. Status of the Art and Science of Dental Plaque Control. Joshipura, K. J., Kent, R. L. & DePaola, P. F. (1994) Gingival recession: intra-oral distribution and associated factors. Journal of Periodontology 65, 864871. Juch, P. J. W. & Schaub, R. M. H. (1998) On the measurement of toothbrushing forces abstract. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 25, 235236. Kallestal, C. & Matsson, L. (1990) Periodontal conditions in a group of Swedish adolescents. (II). Analysis of data. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 17, 609612. Kallestal, C., Matsson, L. & Holm, A. K. (1990) Periodontal conditions in a group of Swedish adolescents. (I). A descriptive epidemiologic study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 17, 601608. Kalsbeek, H., Truin, G. J., Poorterman, J. H., van Rossum, G. M., van Rijkom, H. M. & Verrips, G. H. (2000) Trends in periodontal status and oral hygiene habits in Dutch adults between 1983 and 1995. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28, 112118. Kassab, M. M. & Cohen, R. E. (2003) The etiology and prevalence of gingival recession. Journal of the American Dental Association 134, 220225. Kleber, B. M. (1990) Frequency and pathogenesis of local periodontal recessions. Stomatologie der DDR 40, 7072. Kleber, B. M. (1991) The pattern of prevalence of localized periodontal recessions. Deutsche Stomatologie 41, 174175. Konig, K. G., Berendsen, C. M. & van der Weijden, G. A. (1994) Oral hygiene: effective and safe. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Tandheelkunde 101, 167170. Litonjua, L. A., Andreana, S., Bush, P. J. & Cohen, R. E. (2003) Toothbrushing and gingival recession. International Dental Journal 53, 6772. Litonjua, L. A., Andreana, S., Bush, P. J., Tobias, T. S. & Cohen, R. E. (2004) Wedged cervical lesions produced by toothbrushing. American Journal of Dentistry 17, 237240. Mantokoudis, D., Joss, A., Christensen, M. M., Meng, H. X., Suvan, J. E. & Lang, N. P. (2001) Comparison of the clinical effects and gingival abrasion aspects of manual and electric toothbrushes. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 28, 6572. McLey, L., Boyd, R. L. & Sarker, S. (1997) Clinical and laboratory evaluation of powered electric toothbrushes: laboratory determination of relative abrasion of three powered electric toothbrushes. Journal of Clinical Dentistry 8, 7680. Miller, N., Penaud, J., Ambrosini, P., BissonBoutelliez, C. & Briancon, S. (2003) Analysis of etiologic factors and periodontal conditions involved with 309 abfractions. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 30, 828 832. Muller, H. P., Stadermann, S. & Heinecke, A. (2002) Gingival recession in smokers and non-smokers with minimal periodontal disease. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 29, 129136. Murray, J. J. (1973) Gingival recession in tooth types in high uoride and low uoride areas. Journal of Periodontal Research 8, 243251. Niemi, M. L. (1987) Gingival abrasion and plaque removal after toothbrushing with an electric and a manual toothbrush. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 45, 367370. Niemi, M. L., Ainamo, J. & Etemadzadeh, H. (1986) Gingival abrasion and plaque removal with manual versus electric toothbrushing. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 13, 709 713. Niemi, M. L., Ainamo, J. & Etemadzadeh, H. (1987) The effect of toothbrush grip on gingival abrasion and plaque removal during toothbrushing. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 14, 1921. Niemi, M. L., Ainamo, J. & Etemadzadeh, H. (1988) Gingival abrasion and plaque removal with manual vs. electric toothbrushes. OralProphylaxe 10, 1117.
tional Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 7, 5265. Agudio, G., Pini Prato, G. P. & Cortellini, P. (1984) Gingival lesions due to improper methods of oral hygiene. Mondo Odontostomatologico 26, 4553. Ainamo, J., Xie, Q., Ainamo, A. & Kallio, P. (1997) Assessment of the effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on oral health a 12-month longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 24, 2833. Baab, D. A. & Johnson, R. H. (1989) The effect of a new electric toothbrush on supragingival plaque and gingivitis. Journal of Periodontology 60, 336341. Baker, P. & Spedding, C. (2002) The aetiology of gingival recession. Dental Update 29, 5962. Baszynski, M., Allen, C. R., Moron, Z. & Heasman, P. A. (2001) Development of a force-sensing device for general dental practitioners to evaluate and control brushing force in dental patients. International Workshop on Virtual and Intelligent Measurement Systems, pp. 7175. Beck, J. D. & Koch, G. G. (1994) Characteristics of older adults experiencing periodontal attachment loss as gingival recession or probing depth. Journal of Periodontal Research 29, 290298. Bjorn, A. L., Andersson, U. & Olsson, A. (1981) Gingival recession in 15-year old pupils. Swedish Dental Journal 5, 141146. Bradley, D. J. & McInnes, A. C. (1994) Clinical evaluation of the efcacy and safety of a New Sonic Toothbrush. Journal of Periodontology 65, 692697. Claydon, N., Leach, K., Newcombe, R. G., Ley, F., Scratcher, C. & Addy, M. (2000) The use of professional brushing to compare 3 toothbrushes for plaque removal from individuals with gingival recession. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 27, 749752. Danser, M. M., Timmerman, M. F., Snoek, C. M., Van Der Velden, U. & Van Der Weijden, G. A. (1997) The effect of toothbrush endrounding on efcacy and gingival abrasion. Journal of Dental Research 76, 2194. Danser, M. M., Timmerman, M. F., Yzerman, I. J., Bulthuis, H., van der Velden, U. & van der Weijden, G. A. (1998) Evaluation of the incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 25, 701706. Danser, M. M., Timmerman, M. F., Yzerman, I. J., van der Velden, U., Warren, P. R. & van der Weijden, F. A. (1998) A comparison of electric toothbrushes in their potential to cause gingival abrasion of oral soft tissues. American Journal of Dentistry 11, S35S39. Dentino, A. R., Derderian, G., Wolf, M. A., Cugini, M. A., Johnson, R., Van Swol, R. L., King, D., Marks, P. & Warren, P. (2002) Sixmonth comparison of powered versus manual toothbrushing for safety and efcacy in the absence of professional instruction in mechanical plaque control. Journal of Periodontology 73, 770778. Echeverria, J. J. (1998) Managing the use of bucal hygiene aids to prevent damage: Effects and sequelae of the incorrect use of

Niemi, M. L., Ainamo, J. & Sandholm, L. (1986) The occurrence of gingival brushing lesions during 3 phases of the menstrual cycle. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 13, 2732. Niemi, M. L., Sandholm, L. & Ainamo, J. (1984) Frequency of gingival lesions after standardized brushing as related to stiffness of toothbrush and abrasiveness of dentifrice. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 11, 254261. Nishimura, S. & Watanabe, Y. (1988) An experimental study on related to brushing method and gingival damage. Journal of Meikai University School of Dentistry 17, 5065. Ogasawara, T., Kasahara, H., Hosaka, K., Itou, A., Nohara, S., Hiraide, Y., Kawashima, S. & Watanabe, T. (1990) Oral ndings in severely handicapped patients participating in the periodic dental check-up system for ve years dental caries, gingival recessions and hyperplasias, periodontal diseases. Japanese Journal of Pedodontics 28, 732740. Oliver, M. J. (1988) Chronic recessive atrophy of periodontium. Destruction without pocket formation. Oral Health 78, 2732. Patters, M. R., Bland, P. S., Shiloah, J., Blankenship, J. A. & Scarbecz, M. (2005) Comparison of the hydrabrushs powered toothbrush with two commercially-available powered toothbrushes. International Academy of Periodontology 7, 8089. Pearlman, B. A. (1994) Mistaken health belief resulting in gingival injury: a case report. Journal of Periodontology 65, 284286. Picarelli, A., Baldinetti, A., Raffaelli, R., Rumi, G. & Somma, F. (1983) Gingival recession. Current approaches and recent ndings on its etiopathogenesis. Minerva Stomatologica 32, 547556. Platt, K., Moritis, K., Johnson, M. R., Berg, J. & Dunn, J. R. (2002) Clinical evaluation of the plaque removal efcacy and safety of the Sonicare Elite toothbrush. American Journal of Dentistry 15, 18B22B. Rachlin, G. D. & Mattout, P. (1988) Clinical and histological observations of gingival ssures. Journal de Parodontologie 7, 3945. Radentz, W. H., Barnes, G. P. & Cutright, D. E. (1976) A survey of factors possibly associated with cervical abrasion of tooth surfaces. Journal of Periodontology 47, 148154. Rawal, S. Y., Claman, L. J., Kalmar, J. R. & Tatakis, D. N. (2004) Traumatic lesions of the gingiva: a case series. Journal of Periodontology 75, 762769. Rimondini, L., Zolfanelli, B., Bernardi, F. & Bez, C. (2001) Self-preventive oral behavior in an Italian university student population. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 28, 207211. Rodier, P. (1990) Clinical research on the etiopathology of gingival recession. Journal de Parodontologie 9, 227234. Sandholm, L., Niemi, M. L. & Ainamo, J. (1982) Identication of soft tissue brushing lesions. A clinical and scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 9, 397401. Sangnes, G. (1976) Traumatization of teeth and gingiva related to habitual tooth cleaning procedures. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 3, 94103. Savill, G., Grigor, J., Huntingdon, E., Jackson, R. & Lynch, E. (1998) Toothbrush design: adapting for the future. International Dental Journal 48, 519525. Saxer, U. P. (1999) Evaluation of the incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 26, 480. Schiffner, U. (1995) Wedge-shaped defects of the neck of the tooth in regular brushing with an amine uoride gel. Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin 105, 760764. Sharma, N. C., Galustians, H. J., Qaqish, J. & Cugini, M. (2001) Safety and plaque removal efcacy of a battery-operated power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush. American Journal of Dentistry 14 (Special No.), 9B12B. Smith, R. G. (1997) Gingival recession reappraisal of an enigmatic condition and a new index for monitoring. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 24, 201205. Smukler, H. & Landsberg, J. (1984) The toothbrush and gingival traumatic injury. Journal of Periodontology 55, 713719. Smukler, H. & Machtei, E. (1987) Gingival recession and plaque control. Compendium 8, 194198. Sote, E. O. (1991) Oral prophylactic procedures and gingival health among Nigerian school children. African Dental Journal 5, 1520. Spieler, E. L. (1994) Toothbrush abrasion: prevention and the alert toothbrush. Compendium 15, 306. Spieler, E. L. (1996) Preventing toothbrush abrasion and the efcacy of the alert toothbrush: a review and patient study. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 17, 478480, 482, 484485. Strate, J., Cugini, M. A., Warren, P. R., Qaqish, J. G., Galustians, H. J. & Sharma, N. C. (2005) A comparison of the plaque control efcacy of two power toothbrushes: Oral-B Professional Care Series versus Sonicare Elite. International Dental Journal 55, 151 156. Svensson, L. & Bergenholtz, A. (1986) The correlation between plaque elimination, gingival trauma and frequency of toothbrushing a clinical and sem-study. Swedish Dental Journal 10, 269269. Thomas, D., Rapley, J., Strathman, R. & Parker, R. (1992) Tuberous sclerosis with gingival overgrowth. Journal of Periodontology 63, 713717. Thompson, E. E. (2003) Overbrushing challenge (comment). British Dental Journal 195, 620. Timmerman, M. F., Danser, M. M., Piscaer, M., Ijzerman, Y., van der Veldan, U. & van der Weijden, G. A. (1998) Comparison of incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing. Journal of Dental Research 77, 683. Trott, J. R. & Love, B. (1966) An analysis of localized gingival recession in 766 Winnipeg High School students. Dental Practice and Dental Record 16, 209213.
1059
Tugnait, A. & Clerehugh, V. (2001) Gingival recession-its signicance and management. Journal of Dentistry 29, 381394. Van der Weijden, G. A., Danser, M.M, Timmerman, M. F., Snoek, C. M. & Van der Velden, U. (1997) Toothbrushing force and gingival abrasion. Journal of Dental Research 76, 1083. Van der Weijden, G. A., Timmerman, M. F., Piscaer, M., Ijzerman, Y. & Van der Velden, U. (1999) Efcacy and gingival abrasion after brushing with three electric toothbrushes. (IADR Abstract). Journal of Dental Research 78 (Special), 216. Van der Weijden, G. A., Timmerman, M. F., Piscaer, M., Ijzerman, Y. & van der Velden, U. (2001) Oscillating/rotating electric toothbrushes compared: plaque removal and gingival abrasion. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 28, 536543. Van der Weijden, G. A., Timmerman, M. F., Versteeg, P. A., Piscaer, M. & Van der Velden, U. (2004) High and low brushing force in relation to efcacy and gingival abrasion. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 31, 620624. Versteeg, P. A., Timmerman, M. F., Piscaer, M., Van der Velden, U. & Van der Weijden, G. A. (2005) Brushing with and without dentifrice on gingival abrasion. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 32, 158162. Walsh, M., Heckman, B., Leggott, P., Armitage, G. & Robertson, P. B. (1989) Comparison of manual and power toothbrushing with and without adjunctive oral irrigation, for controlling plaque and gingivitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 16, 419427. Warren, P. R., Cugini, M., Marks, P. & King, D. W. (2001) Safety, efcacy and acceptability of a new power toothbrush: a 3-month comparative clinical investigation. American Journal of Dentistry 14, 37. Wilson, S., Levine, D., Dequincey, G. & Killoy, W. J. (1993) Effects of two toothbrushes on plaque, gingivitis, gingival abrasion, and recession: a 1-year longitudinal study. Compendium (Newtown, PA) (Suppl.), S569 S579; S612S564. Wilson, S., Levine, D., Dequincey, G., Killoy, W. J. & Schonfeld, S. (1991) Effects of two toothbrushes on plaque, gingivitis and gingival abrasion (IADR abstract). Journal of Dental Research 70 (Special Issue/ Abstracts), 416. Winkler, J. R. & Robertson, P. B. (1992) Periodontal disease associated with HIV infection. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 73, 145150. Woofter, C. (1969) The prevalence and etiology of gingival recession. Journal of the Western Society of Periodontology 17, 4550.
Additional studies referred to in the text but not included in the review
Axell, T. & Koch, G. (1982) Traumatic ulcerative gingival lesion. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 9, 178183.
1060
Rajapakse et al.
Khan, K. S., ter Riet, G., Glanville, J., Sowden, A. J. & Kleijnen, J. (2001) Undertaking systematic review of research on effectiveness. CRDs guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd edition). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, ISBN 1 900640 20 1. Kunz, R. & Oxman, A. D. (1998) The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal 317, 11851190. Lipsett, M. & Campleman, S. (1999) Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health 89, 10091017. Loe, H., Anerud, A. & Boysen, H. (1992) The natural history of periodontal disease in man: prevalence, severity and extent of gingival recession. Journal of Periodontology 63, 489495. Loe, H., Anerud, A., Boysen, H. & Smith, M. (1978) The natural history of periodontal disease in man: the rate of periodontal destruction before 40 years of age. Journal of Periodontology 49, 607620. Miller, S. C. (1950) Textbook of Periodontia, 3rd edition, 63pp. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Co. OLeary, T. J., Drake, R. B., Crump, P. P. & Allen, M. F. (1971) The incidence of recession in young males. Journal of Periodontology 42, 264268. OLeary, T. J., Drake, R. B., Jividen, G. & Allen, M. (1968) The incidence of recession in young males. Relationship to gingival and plaque scores. Periodontics 6, 109111. Sangnes, G. (1976) Traumatization of teeth and gingival related to habitual tooth-cleaning procedures. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 3, 94103. Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A. & Thacker, S. B. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. Journal of the American Medical Association 283, 2008 2012. Terezhalmy, G. T., Gagliardi, V. B., Rybicki, L. A. & Kaufman, M. J. (1994) Clinical evaluation of the efcacy and safety of the UltraSonex ultrasonic toothbrush: a 30-day study. Compendium 15, 866874. Van der Weijden, G. A., Timmerman, M. F., Reijerse, E., Danser, M. M., Mantel, M. S., Nilboer, A. & Vander Welden, U. (1994) The long-term effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on gingivitis. An 8-month clinical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 21, 139145. Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2004) When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 363, 17281731.
Bernimoulin, J. P., Luscher, B. & Muhlemann, H. R. (1975) Coronally repositioned periodontal ap: clinical evaluation after one year. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2, 113. Boyle, P. (1950) Histopathology of the Teeth and their Surrounding Structures, 3rd edition, 351pp. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Breitenmoser, J., Mormann, W. & Muhlemann, H. (1979) Damaging effects of toothbrush bristle end form of gingiva. Journal of Periodontology 50, 212216. Brown, L. J., Brunelle, J. A. & Kingman, A. (1996) Periodontal status in the United States, 19981991: prevalence, extent and demographic variation. Journal of Dental Research 75, 672683. Glickman, I. (1964) Clinical Periodontology, 3rd edition, p. 101. Philidelphia & London: WB Saunders. Heasman, P. A., Stacey, F., Heasman, L., Sellers, P., Macgregor, I. D. M. & Kelly, P. J. K. (1999) A comparative study of the Philips HP735, Braun/Oral B D7 and the Oral B 35 Advantage toothbrushes. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 26, 8590. Johnson, B. D. & McInnes, C. (1994) Clinical evaluation of the efcacy and safety of a new sonic toothbrush. Journal of Periodontology 65, 692697. Kennedy, J. E., Bird, W. C., Palcanis, K. G. & Dorfman, H. S. (1985) A longitudinal evaluation of varying widths of attached gingival. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 12, 667675. Kitchin, P. (1941) The prevalence of tooth root exposure, and the relation of the extent of such exposure to the degree of abrasion in different age classes. Journal of Dental Research 20, 565581.
Address: Prof. Peter Heasman School of Dental Sciences University of Newcastle upon Tyne Framlington Place Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4BW UK E-mail: p.a.heasman@newcastle.ac.uk
Clinical Relevance
Scientic rationale for the study: Anecdotal evidence, case reports and reviews suggest an association between tooth brushing and the development of gingival recession. This suggested that there was a need for a review to evaluate the quality of evidence more carefully.
Principal ndings: The majority of the evidence from cross-sectional studies suggests that tooth brushing and tooth brushing habits are associated with the development of gingival recession although it is unclear which factors are causative. Evidence from one RCT indicates that tooth brushing with manual and pow-
ered brushes may, under certain circumstances, reduce lesions of buccal gingival recession. Practical implications: Clinicians must, however, remain vigilant to the possibility that tooth brushing may contribute to gingival recession.

Appendix A
1061
Table A1. Table depicting the selection strategy comprising a free text electronic search of sequences and giving the number of articles retrieved by each search term or combination of terms Database Medline 1966July 2005 Search number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Search term Tooth brushing Dental devices/home care Oral hygiene Toothbrush$.mp Combined 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Toothbrush$ [adj3] pressure Toothbrush$ [adj3] force Toothbrush$ [adj3] techniques Toothbrush$ [adj3] toothpaste Toothbrush$ [adj3] frequency Toothbrush$ [adj3] design$ Toothbrush$ [adj3] texture$ Toothbrush$ [adj3] bristle$ 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 5 or 14 Gingival recession Gingival [adj3] recession Gingival [adj3] abrasion Gingival [adj3] trauma Gingival [adj3] lesions 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 16 or 21 15 and 22 Identical run Identical run Identical run Identical run Tooth brushing with gingival recession and/or gingival abrasion/gingival trauma/gingival lesions Results 4159 1154 7154 4741 11,308 13 29 54 113 163 115 5 181 614 11,308 1396 1715 35 31 342 2083 2083 223 65 52 34 45 294 118 831
Embase Web of Science Current contents Cochrane reviews Google scholar Advance search Hand search Total

Brushing Teeth and Recession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brushing Teeth and Recession

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brushing Teeth and Recession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 10461061 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01149.

Conict of interest and source of funding statement

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

Material and Methods

A protocol was developed a priori following initial discussion between all

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

Electronic and manual searches

Screening titles n = 831 Excluded titles n = 711

Screening abstracts n = 120

Excluded texts n = 11 Articles included in the review n = 18

Level III evidence

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Cohort study Benz et al. (1987) German

Clinical examination. Record of tooth brushing behaviour

Murtomaa et al. (1987) English

Clinical examination. Record of tooth brushing habits

Paloheimo et al. (1987) English

360 adolescents (1520 years)

Clinical examination. Questionnaire to collect data on tooth brushing habits

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Frentzen et al. (1989) German

Vehkalahti et al. (1989) English

Kallestal & Uhlin (1992) English

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Khocht et al. (1993) English

Serino et al. (1994) English

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

Goutoudi et al. (1997) English

Checchi et al. (1999) English

Observational/ cross-sectional but with observations at 2 time pointsz

Tsami-Pandi & KomboliKontovazeniti (1999) Greek

Unspecied Clinical examination

To correlate the severity of gingival recession with aetiological factors

32 subjects with anterior sites of gingival recession (2738 years)

To determine prevalence of gingival recession and to associate with aetiological factors

Health interviews. Clinical examination

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tezel et al. (2001) English

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Wilckens et al. (2003) English

Kozlowska et al. (2005) English

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Recommendations for clinical practice

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

Additional screened titles and abstracts not included in the review

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Tooth brushing and gingival recession

r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

You might also like