| Literature DB >> 28824445 |
Michael J Hubbard1,2, Jonathan E Mangum2, Vidal A Perez2,3, Garry J Nervo2, Roger K Hall2.
Abstract
Developmental dental defects (DDDs, hereafter "D3s") hold significance for scientists and practitioners from both medicine and dentistry. Although, attention has classically dwelt on three other D3s (amelogenesis imperfecta, dental fluorosis, and enamel hypoplasia), dental interest has recently swung toward Molar Hypomineralisation (MH), a prevalent condition characterised by well-delineated ("demarcated") opacities in enamel. MH imposes a significant burden on global health and has potential to become medically preventable, being linked to infantile illness. Yet even in medico-dental research communities there is only narrow awareness of this childhood problem and its link to tooth decay, and of allied research opportunities. Major knowledge gaps exist at population, case and tooth levels and salient information from enamel researchers has sometimes been omitted from clinically-oriented conclusions. From our perspective, a cross-sector translational approach is required to address these complex inadequacies effectively, with the ultimate aim of prevention. Drawing on experience with a translational research network spanning Australia and New Zealand (The D3 Group; www.thed3group.org), we firstly depict MH as a silent public health problem that is generally more concerning than the three classical D3s. Second, we argue that diverse research inputs are needed to undertake a multi-faceted attack on this problem, and outline demarcated opacities as the central research target. Third, we suggest that, given past victories studying other dental conditions, enamel researchers stand to make crucial contributions to the understanding and prevention of MH. Finally, to focus geographically diverse research interests onto this nascent field, further internationalisation of The D3 Group is warranted.Entities:
Keywords: amelogenesis imperfecta; dental caries; dental fluorosis; enamel defects; enamel hypoplasia; enamel opacities; networked research; translational research
Year: 2017 PMID: 28824445 PMCID: PMC5540900 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Comparing molar hypomineralisation with other major D3s.
| Child prevalence (permanent teeth) | 1-in-6 (≈17%) | 1-in-10 (≈10%) | 1-in-20 (≈5%) | 1-in-10,000 (≈0.01%) |
| Commonest teeth affected | 6-year molars | Any tooth | Any tooth | All teeth |
| How many teeth affected | 1 to all 4 of each tooth type | All front teeth often | Several teeth often | Front and back teeth |
| Adds risk for | Toothache, decay, cosmetic issues | Cosmetic issues mostly | Decay, cosmetic issues | Toothache, decay, cosmetic issues |
| Dental consequences | Fillings, extractions, orthodontic need | Cosmetic dentistry | Cosmetic dentistry, fillings | Fillings, extractions, tooth replacement |
| Cost to family | Medium | Low | Low | High |
| Costs to society | High | Low | Low | Low |
| Cause | Infantile illness | Fluoride excess | Infantile illness | Genetic mutation |
| Preventable? | Potentially | Yes | Largely | No |
Average value from 59 prevalence studies worldwide; www.thed3group.org/prevalence.html
Prevalence of dental fluorosis is often lower and sometimes much higher than 10% (e.g., due to dietary habits in some communities or exposure to naturally high levels of fluoride in drinking water).
Prevalence of enamel hypoplasia ranges from 1% in developed countries (e.g., 0.7% in New Zealand; Mahoney and Morrison, .
Global prevalence of amelogenesis imperfecta remains poorly characterised, but a range from 1-in-700 to 1-in-14,000 is often cited (Sneller et al., .
Permanent first molars (“6-year molars”) are affected most commonly, followed by incisors, second molars (“12-year” molars) and primary second molars (“2-year” molars). All other teeth in the primary and permanent dentitions are affected more rarely.
Lacking normal hardness, MH teeth are often difficult to treat and so restorations frequently don't last as long as usual. Extractions are common and can lead to costly orthodontic needs.
www.thed3group.org/economic-cost.html
To strengthen comparison, a typical version of each disorder as seen in the recently-erupted permanent teeth of healthy schoolchildren was used. Representative prevalence values are given for developed countries, realising that significant differences exist in some other parts of the world. The family and social costs were ranked arbitrarily (as high, medium, low), taking into account prevalence, health risks and presumptive economic cost. High-impact features are shaded (orange) and reportrayed comparatively in Figure .
Figure 1Relative impacts of the four major D3s. Prevalence, and (arbitrary) family costs and social costs were taken from Table 1 and represented comparatively in different colours as indicated. It is apparent that MH is the commonest D3, the most costly to society, and often burdensome for families (in terms of suffering, time and money). In contrast, although amelogenesis imperfecta can be quite devasting for the families concerned, this genetic disorder is relatively rare and so poses a low burden for society. Dental fluorosis and enamel hypoplasia also have lesser impacts than MH under the general population settings of Table 1.