TABLE 3.

Tooth Wear Status, determining aetiology and pathology

Tooth Wear Status, determining aetiology by clinical signs (Wetselaar, Wetselaar‐Glas, Katzer, Ahlers, 2019)
Clinical signs indicating the influence of chemical factors ◯ 1. occlusal “cupping,” incisal “grooving,” ‘cratering’ [*], rounding of cusps and grooves [**] ◯ 2. wear on non‐occluding surfaces [*], non‐carious cervical lesions, NCCL [*****] ◯ 3. “raised” restorations [*] [**] ◯ 4. broad concavities within smooth surface enamel [*], convex areas flatten, or concavities become present, width exceed depth [**] ◯ 5. increased incisal translucency [*] ◯ 6. clean, non‐tarnished appearance of amalgams [*] ◯ 7. preservation of enamel “cuff” in gingival crevice [*] [**] ◯ 8. no plaque, discoloration or tartar [**] ◯ 9. hypersensitivity [*] ◯ 10. smooth silky‐shining, silky‐glazed appearance, dull surface [**] Clinical signs indicating the influence of mechanical factors ◯ 1. shiny facets [*], flat and glossy [**] ◯ 2. enamel and dentin wear at the same rate [*] ◯ 3. matching wear on occluding surfaces [*] corresponding features at the antagonistic teeth [**] ◯ 4. fracture of cusps or restorations [*] ◯ 5. impressions in cheek, tongue and/or lip [***] ◯ 6. located at cervical areas of the teeth [*], non‐carious cervical lesions, NCCL [*****] ◯ 7. buccal/cervical lesions more wide than deep [*], non‐carious cervical lesions, NCCL [*****] ◯ 8. cervical areas of premolars and cuspids are affected [*] ◯ 9. cracks within the enamel [****] ◯ 10. torus mandibulae [*****]
[*] according to Gandara and Truelove 1999; [**] according to Ganss and Lussi 2014 (***) according to Wetselaar and Lobbezoo 2016; (****) according to Turssi et al 2019 (*****) according to Hammoudi et al 2019; [*****] according to Bhundia et al, 2019 The term “sometimes” (in item 10 Clinical signs indicating the influence of chemical factors), as well as the terms “possible,” “usually” and “commonly” (in item 4, 6 and 8, respectively, of the clinical signs indicating the influence of mechanical factors) are deleted, although they were mentioned in the original text of the respective authors; the answer options are now: yes or no
In a small (theoretically) number of cases, one or more items cannot be assessed because of absence. These several possibilities are as follows: A. item 3 (Clinical signs indicating the influence of chemical factors), if there are no restorations; B. item 6 (Clinical signs indicating the influence of chemical factors), if there are no amalgam fillings; C. item 3 (Clinical signs indicating the influence of mechanical factors) if there are no antagonists; and D. item 8 (Clinical signs indicating the influence of mechanical factors) if there are no premolars or cuspids. So in both subgroups, two items can be “no scored.” So in both subgroups, two items can be “no scored.” If this is the case, the additional cut‐off criteria are as follows: with a minimum of four items, it still must be considered as “mainly (chemical or mechanical)”.
Tooth Wear Status, detection of pathological signs and symptoms (Wetselaar, Wetselaar‐Glas, Katzer, Ahlers, 2019)
Tooth wear with dentin exposure (moderate, severe or extreme) Independent of distribution (localised or generalised) Tooth wear with dentin exposure (moderate, severe or extreme) Independent of distribution (localised or generalised)	AND at least one of the following criteria:	sensitivity and/or pain [*] [**] functional problems (difficulties chewing and eating) [*] [**] deterioration of aesthetic appearance (compromised dental attractiveness) [*] [**] fast progress of the tooth wear process after a period of monitoring [*] [**] wear atypical for the age of the patient [*] [**] crumbling of dental hard tissue and restorations, threatening the integrity of teeth [*] etiological factors not influenceable [*] surfaces that are involved in occlusion and articulation, leading to the loss of VDO [*] the condition of the saliva [*] phonetic impairment [***]
[*] according to Wetselaar and Lobbezoo 2016; [**] according to Loomans et al, 2017; [***] according to Burnett and Clifford, 1999.