PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the orofacial features of 26 unrelated Brazilian patients with mucopolysaccharidosis and to verify any possible associations between these findings and specific types of mucopolysaccharidosis. METHODS: Patients were diagnosed with mucopolysaccharidosis and clinically evaluated. Following consent, a clinical assessment form was completed. Facial and intraoral examination was performed by evaluating facial pattern, malocclusions, dental caries, and tooth identification. RESULTS: Midface deficiency, increased lower facial third, anterior open bite, convex profile, macroglossia, gingival enlargement, and spaced arches were the most frequently observed features. These findings did not allow a differential diagnosis among the different types of mucopolysaccharidosis, except for pitting enamel, which significantly associated with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (P < .001). Open bite was associated with mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, III, and VI; however, only one patient with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA expressed this feature (P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pitted enamel in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis is most likely a feature of mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA; whereas, open bite is rarely observed in these patients. Orofacial features in mucopolysaccharidosis may help pediatric dentists recognize this disorder and minimize the delay between the initial signs/symptoms and diagnosis of the disease. Future studies should focus on the longitudinal manifestations, expression, and severity of mucopolysaccharidosis-associated orofacial anomalies.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the orofacial features of 26 unrelated Brazilian patients with mucopolysaccharidosis and to verify any possible associations between these findings and specific types of mucopolysaccharidosis. METHODS:Patients were diagnosed with mucopolysaccharidosis and clinically evaluated. Following consent, a clinical assessment form was completed. Facial and intraoral examination was performed by evaluating facial pattern, malocclusions, dental caries, and tooth identification. RESULTS: Midface deficiency, increased lower facial third, anterior open bite, convex profile, macroglossia, gingival enlargement, and spaced arches were the most frequently observed features. These findings did not allow a differential diagnosis among the different types of mucopolysaccharidosis, except for pitting enamel, which significantly associated with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (P < .001). Open bite was associated with mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, III, and VI; however, only one patient with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA expressed this feature (P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pitted enamel in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis is most likely a feature of mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA; whereas, open bite is rarely observed in these patients. Orofacial features in mucopolysaccharidosis may help pediatric dentists recognize this disorder and minimize the delay between the initial signs/symptoms and diagnosis of the disease. Future studies should focus on the longitudinal manifestations, expression, and severity of mucopolysaccharidosis-associated orofacial anomalies.
Authors: Andrea Gómez-González; Miguel Ángel Rosales-Berber; Paola De Ávila-Rojas; Amaury Pozos-Guillén; Arturo Garrocho-Rangel Journal: Case Rep Dent Date: 2020-01-22