| Literature DB >> 22720168 |
Mostafa Abdel-Aziz El-Hodhod1, Iman Ali El-Agouza, Hala Abdel-Al, Noha Samir Kabil, Khaled Abd El-Moez Bayomi.
Abstract
Background. Dental enamel defects (DEDs) are seen in celiac disease (CD). Aim was to detect frequency of CD among such patients. Methods. This study included 140 children with DED. They were tested for CD. Gluten-free diet (GFD) was instituted for CD patients. A cohort of 720, age and sex-matched, normal children represented a control group. Both groups were evaluated clinically. Serum calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, serum IgA, and tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgG and IgA types were measured. Results. CD was more diagnosed in patients with DEDs (17.86%) compared to controls (0.97%) (P < 0.0001). Majority of nonceliac patients showed grade 1 DED compared to grades 1, 2, and 3 DED in CD. Five children had DED of deciduous teeth and remaining in permanent ones. After 1 year on GFD, DED improved better in CD compared to nonceliac patients. Gastrointestinal symptoms did not vary between celiac and nonceliac DED patients. Lower serum calcium significantly predicted CD in this cohort. Conclusion. CD is more prevalent among children with DED than in the general population. These DEDs might be the only manifestation of CD; therefore, screening for CD is highly recommended among those patients especially in presence of underweight and hypocalcemia.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22720168 PMCID: PMC3376764 DOI: 10.5402/2012/763783
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Pediatr ISSN: 2090-469X
Comparison of different variables between patients with dental enamel defects and controls.
| Children with dental | Normal children (720) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| enamel defects (140) | ||||
| Males | 72 (51.43%) | 371 (51.53%) | 0.001 |
|
| Female | 68 (48.57%) | 349 (48.47%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Consanguinity | 60 (42.86%) | 169 (23.47%) | 17.71 |
|
| No consanguinity | 80 (57.14%) | 551 (76.53%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Recurrent GI symptoms | 25 (17.86%) | 146 (20.28%) | 0.37 |
|
| No | 115 (82.14%) | 574 (79.72) | ||
|
| ||||
| Underweight | 45 (32.14%) | 41 (5.69%) | 57.94 |
|
| Not underweight | 95 (67.86%) | 679 (94.31%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Celiac | 25 (17.86%) | 7 (0.97%) | 36.95 |
|
| Nonceliac | 115 (82.14%) | 713 (99.03%) | ||
Comparison between patients with dental enamel abnormalities who are positive for celiac disease versus those without celiac disease.
| Dental enamel abnormalities | Dental enamel abnormalities |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| with celiac disease = 25 | without celiac disease = 115 | |||
| Males | 15 (60%) | 60 (52.17%) | 0.51 |
|
| Female | 10 (40%) | 55 (47.83%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Consanguinity | 16 (64%) | 44 (38.26%) | 5.56 |
|
| No consanguinity | 9 (36%) | 71 (61.74%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Recurrent GI symptoms | 5 (20%) | 20 (17.39%) | 0.10 |
|
| No | 20 (80%) | 95 (82.61%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Underweight | 15 (60%) | 30 (26.09%) | 10.83 |
|
| Not underweight | 10 (40%) | 85 (73.91%) | ||
Grading of dental enamel pathology in patients according to celiac positivity and effect of a GFD for 1 year.
| Celiac + DED at | Celiac + DED After | Nonceliac + DED at | Nonceliac + DED | GIa versus GIIa | GIb versus GIIb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| start of study | 1 year on GFD | start of study | after 1 year | |||
| (25) | (25) | (115) | (115) | |||
| (GIa) | (GIb) | (GIIa) | (GIIb) | |||
| Normal | 0 | 6 (24%) | 0 | 4 (3.48%) |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Grade 1 | 7 (28%) | 7 (28%) | 80 (69.57%) | 78(67.38%) |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||
|
| ||||||
| Grade 2 | 10 (40%) | 6 (24%) | 22 (19.13%) | 21 (18.26%) |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||
|
| ||||||
| Grade 3 | 6 (24%) | 4(16%) | 11 (9.57%) | 10 (8.7%) |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||
|
| ||||||
| Grade 4 | 2 (8%) | 2 (8%) | 2 (1.74%) | 2 (1.74%) |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||
Figure 1Comparison between the degrees of improvement of grade of DED in patients with CD versus patients with non-CD. (DIFF_CD: degree of improvement in CD, DIFNONCD: degree of improvement in non-CD).
regression summary for possible predictors of celiac disease in patients with DED.
| Item | BETA | Standard error of BETA |
| Standard error of |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.344 | 0.117 | −0.074 | 0.025 | −2.947 | 0.005 |
| Consanguinity | −0.191 | 0.264 | −0.090 | 0.123 | −0.725 | 0.471 |
| Diarrhea | 0.158 | 0.277 | 0.129 | 0.227 | 0.570 | 0.571 |
| Abdominal distension | −0.040 | 0.144 | −0.032 | 0.114 | −0.277 | 0.783 |
| Z score for weight | −0.120 | 0.121 | −0.020 | 0.012 | −1.658 | 0.104 |
| Grade of enamel defects | 0.049 | 0.207 | 0.043 | 0.181 | 0.235 | 0.815 |
| Dental plaque | −0.209 | 0.203 | −0.170 | 0.166 | −1.026 | 0.310 |
| Hemoglobin | −0.295 | 0.305 | −0.085 | 0.088 | −0.965 | 0.339 |
| Calcium level | −0.524 | 0.228 | −0.232 | 0.101 | −2.293 | 0.026 |
R = 0.78641809, R² = 0.61845341, Adjusted R² = 0.55112165, F(9,51) = 9.1852, P < 0.000001, Standard Error of estimate = 0.26854.