Epidemiology of mid‐buccal gingival recessions in NHANES according to the 2018 World Workshop Classification System

Abstract

Aim There are no nationally representative epidemiological studies available reporting on the different recession types according to the 2018 classification system or focusing on the aesthetic zone. The aims of this cross‐sectional study were (a) to provide estimates on the prevalence, severity and extent of mid‐buccal GRs according to the 2018 classification and (b) to identify their risk indicators in the adult U.S. population from the NHANES database. Materials and Methods Data from 10,676 subjects, representative of 143.8 millions of adults, were retrieved from the NHANES 2009–2014 database. GR prevalence was defined as the presence of at least one mid‐buccal GR ≥1 mm. GRs were categorized following the 2018 World Workshop classification system (RT1, RT2, RT3) and according to different severity cut‐offs. An analysis for GR risk indicators was also performed, selecting subjects without periodontitis. Results The patient‐level prevalence of mid‐buccal GRs (all types) was 91.6%, while it decreased to 70.7% when considering only the aesthetic zone. When focusing on RT1 GRs, the patient‐level prevalence (whole mouth) was 12.4%, while it was 5.8% considering only the aesthetic zone. The majority of RT1 GRs were considered as mild (1–2 mm). The whole‐mouth patient‐level prevalence of RT2 and RT3 GRs was 88.8% and 55.0%, respectively. Age (35–49 years), gender (female), ethnicity (non–Hispanic Whites), last dental visit (>6 months before), tooth type (incisors) and the arch (mandible) resulted as risk indicators associated with the presence of RT1 GR. Conclusions Mid‐buccal GRs affect almost the entire US population. Age, gender, ethnicity, dental care exposure, tooth type and arch were identified as risk indicators for RT1 GRs.

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around dental implants

“…This finding may be explained by the higher number of teeth present for longer periods of time in the mouths, when compared with implants. However, when comparing the patient‐level prevalence of buccal PISTD in implants without peri‐implantitis with the one of RT1 gingival recessions ≧1 mm, they appear to be similar (10–15%), suggesting a comparable manifestation of these two apparently similar conditions (Romandini et al, 2020).…”

Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Single and Multiple Coronally Advanced Flap for Type 1 Recession: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Gingival recession (GR) has been defined as the apical shift of the gingival margin in respect to the cementoenamel junction with concomitant exposure of the root surface in the oral cavity [1]. Several etiological factors such as tissue phenotype, gingival thickness, brushing technique, non-carious and carious cervical lesions, and periodontal predisposition were identified for this condition [2], which may account for its relatively high incidence in the population (45%) [3][4][5]. Root coverage procedures have been shown to be effective in treating single and multiple GRs [6][7][8], with large evidence supporting the superiority of coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with connective tissue graft Medicina 2021, 57, 144 2 of 20 (CTG) [9][10][11].…”

Digital Assessment of Gingival Dimensions of Healthy Periodontium

“…The area of the KG may influence the mechanical stability of the soft tissue, such as susceptibility to the recession. However, epidemiologic studies demonstrated heterogeneous findings [23][24][25].…”