AIM: To analyze the existing variability on molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence in the literature; to distinguish the various molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence rates in different countries, areas, and regions of the world; and to know the valid diagnostic criteria used for the correct identification of molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence. STUDY DESIGN: A literature review from Medline and Cochrane Library online databases was performed using five terms individually or in combination. Articles not reporting diagnostic criteria employed and articles not written English were excluded. The results were analyzed by country, region, year of study, sample size, range of age, and prevalence rate. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles in English were selected from 1987 to 2014 and from those only 14 employed the EAPD's 2003 diagnostic criteria. The reported age range varied from 5.5 to 17 years; the most frequently range used was 7 to 9 years. A wide prevalence range from 2.8% to 44% was found and 82.61% of the articles reported calibrated examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison among the results of the studies is difficult due to the use of different indexes and diagnostic criteria, the analysis variability, selection methods, and different age groups. In reality, we are probably far from knowing the real MIH prevalence.
AIM: To analyze the existing variability on molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence in the literature; to distinguish the various molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence rates in different countries, areas, and regions of the world; and to know the valid diagnostic criteria used for the correct identification of molar incisor hypomineralization prevalence. STUDY DESIGN: A literature review from Medline and Cochrane Library online databases was performed using five terms individually or in combination. Articles not reporting diagnostic criteria employed and articles not written English were excluded. The results were analyzed by country, region, year of study, sample size, range of age, and prevalence rate. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles in English were selected from 1987 to 2014 and from those only 14 employed the EAPD's 2003 diagnostic criteria. The reported age range varied from 5.5 to 17 years; the most frequently range used was 7 to 9 years. A wide prevalence range from 2.8% to 44% was found and 82.61% of the articles reported calibrated examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison among the results of the studies is difficult due to the use of different indexes and diagnostic criteria, the analysis variability, selection methods, and different age groups. In reality, we are probably far from knowing the real MIH prevalence.
Authors: Juliana de Aguiar Grossi; Renata Nunes Cabral; Ana Paula Dias Ribeiro; Soraya Coelho Leal Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Miguel Hernández; Paloma Planells; Eva Martínez; Alex Mira; Miguel Carda-Diéguez Journal: J Oral Microbiol Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 5.474