Structured review of enamel erosion literature (1980-1998): A critical appraisal of experimental, clinical review publications

G. Maupomé, J. M. Ray

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


OBJECTIVE: To attain an objective account of the methods to measure enamel erosion used in 1980-1998 publications, a structured review of the literature was undertaken. METHODS: Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to 731 clinical/experimental research and review reports. Eighty-five included papers were subsequently rated according to 'hierarchy of evidence' guidelines to assess the strength of the report's design and the relevance of the evidence to replicating enamel erosion in vivo in humans. Scores were assigned to rate each aspect in the guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 16 clinical, 13 review and 56 experimental papers were assessed; 36.4% were published during 1996-1998. Excluding reviews, 16 papers were qualitative and 56 quantitative; 51 used human enamel. Our classification yielded nine groups of methods (five scoring systems and 26 measurement techniques). CTFPHE (Can Med Assoc J 1992; 147: 443) grading of research reports indicated that 2.8% provided evidence grade I; 20.8%, grade IIa; 63.9%, grade III; and 12.5%, grade IV. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a consistent increase in the body of knowledge. The overall quality of publications has not substantially changed over time. Experimental studies were more often quantitative, and quantitative studies had better research designs. No single group of research methods had obviously superior research designs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)197-207
Number of pages11
JournalOral Diseases
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 1 2000
Externally publishedYes


  • Acid
  • Enamel
  • Erosion
  • Human
  • Saliva
  • Structured review
  • Tooth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Dentistry(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Structured review of enamel erosion literature (1980-1998): A critical appraisal of experimental, clinical review publications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this