Global prevalence of gingival recession: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to estimate the global prevalence of gingival recession (GR) in the general population.Materials and MethodsPopulation‐based observational studies reporting the prevalence of GR and published from 1991 to 2021 were identified from five electronic databases and manual searches. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The pooled prevalence of GR was calculated by using a random‐effect model. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to summarize the overall certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 37,460 participants were included. The overall pooled prevalence was 78.16% at the minimal reported threshold values and 84.92% at ≥1 mm “cut‐off” with high heterogeneity among studies. A separate analysis for the buccal GR revealed a pooled prevalence of 75.42%. The risk of bias was found to be high for 10 and low for 5 studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed to be very low.ConclusionMore than two‐thirds of the population worldwide was found to be affected by GR. Studies with standard case definition and less heterogeneity are required to accurately estimate the prevalence of GR.

Evaluation of oral health among people with multimorbidity in the marginalized population of Karachi, Pakistan: A multicenter cross-sectional study

“… 34 It has also been linked with age in many studies. 35 However, in our study population, gingival recession was most prevalent in adults 18–38 years of age, which is also supported by a Brazilian study. 36 By contrast, a higher incidence of recession was seen in people with excellent oral hygiene than in those with poor oral hygiene.…”

Evidence-based suggestions to improve the methodological issues in reporting of prevalence studies on gingival recession

“…[ 2 ] It is a highly prevalent condition with varying patterns in different populations across the globe. [ 3 ] Several aspects of study design and clinical examination protocol can have an influence on its prevalence estimates. In addition, subject-related periodontal risk factors may further account for observed differences in the prevalence estimates across the studies.…”

“…Our recently published systematic review and meta-analysis on the worldwide prevalence of GR also revealed a conspicuous lack of homogeneity among the epidemiological studies and underscored the urgent need for a universally accepted standard protocol to report the GR prevalence. [ 3 ] Reporting of reliable data derived following standardized principles will not only facilitate the comparisons between GR prevalence estimates in different populations but would also help the public health policymakers in resource planning and sensitize the oral health-care personnel for early diagnosis, prevention, and need for interventional approaches.…”

“…The overall strength of evidence in our systematic review reporting the global prevalence of GR was determined using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach[ 4 ] and found to be very low, the detailed process of which is described elsewhere. [ 3 ] Based on this systematically generated available evidence, this commentary aims to provide recommendations for reporting the prevalence of GR in future epidemiological studies in a standard format. It is hoped that it will improve the reporting quality, impart uniformity for meaningful comparisons of prevalence estimates across populations and provide insight into determinants of variation in the global prevalence of GR.…”

Need for additional research on vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) technique in India

“… 1 The global prevalence of GR for buccal gingival recessions was reported as 75.42% in 2022. 2 Although GR can cause root sensitivity, root caries, and cosmetic issues, not all GR necessitate surgical intervention. However, untreated GR may result in progressive recession (odds ratio 2.43), which has a detrimental impact on the success of future treatment.…”