| Literature DB >> 32041633 |
Carla Munné-Miralvés1, Lluís Brunet-Llobet2,3, Abel Cahuana-Cárdenas1, Sergi Torné-Durán4, Jaume Miranda-Rius1,5,4, Alejandro Rivera-Baró1,5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) is a genetic disorder caused by the lack of expression of certain paternal genes located on chromosome 15q11-q13. This anomaly causes cognitive, neurological and endocrine abnormalities, among which one of the most important is hyperphagia. The aim of this study was to assess the oral health of children with PWA and to establish preventive criteria.Entities:
Keywords: Caries index (CI); Hyperphagia; Plaque index (PI); Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS); Salivary alteration
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32041633 PMCID: PMC7011482 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-020-1326-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
Fig. 1Hypotonia in a newborn with PWS
Fig. 2Physical characteristics of PWS
Fig. 3a.b/ Deciduous dentition. Observe the areas of attrition with severe incisal wear, and erosions present in vestibular areas; c/ Deciduous dentition. Dental malocclusion with anterior crossbite in the incisor region
Fig. 4PWS patients present thickened, sticky saliva. See the clinical manifestations in the images
Descriptive statistics of the oral conditions in the sample
| Parameters | PWS | Control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 18 (60%) | 18 (60%) | |
| Female | 12 (40%) | 12 (40%) | ||
| Age | Mean age (years) | 10.2 years (range 2 to18 - SD 5.314) | ||
| Type of dentition | Deciduous | 6 (20.0%) | 8 (26.7%) | |
| Mean age | 3.16 | 3.87 | ||
| Mixed | 14 (46.7%) | 12 (40.0%) | ||
| Mean age | 8.66 | 9.5 | ||
| Permanent | n (%) | 10 (33.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | |
| Mean age | 16.2 | 16.1 | ||
| Plaque Index | 0 | 3 (10.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | |
| 1 | 6 (20.0%) | 15 (50.0%) | ||
| 2 | 14 (46.7%) | 8 (26.7%) | ||
| 3 | 7 (23.3%) | 5 (16.6%) | ||
| Gingival Index | 0–1 | 14 (46.7%) | 18 (60.0%) | |
| 2 | 16 (53.3%) | 12 (40.0%) | ||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Dental erosion, attrition or wear | 9 (30.0%) | 3 (10.0%) | ||
| Enamel hypoplasia | 2 (6.7%) | 0 | ||
| Angular cheilitis-oral lesions | 4 (13.3%) | 0 | ||
| Candidiasis | 0 | 0 | ||
Comparison of stimulated salivary flow, pH and DMFT in the two populations
| GROUP | n | Mean | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ml/min | PWS | 18 | 0.475 | 0.5714 | 0.032 |
| Control | 25 | 0.848 | 0.4932 | ||
| pH | PWS | 27 | 6.15 | 0.818 | 0.0001 |
| Control | 30 | 7.53 | 0.776 | ||
| DMFT | PWS | 30 | 2.5 | 3.170 | 0.017 |
| Control | 30 | 0.93 | 1.311 |
p < 0.05. Student t-test
Comparison of DMFT index and pH
| DMFT and pH in healthy patients | Correlation coefficient | 0.373* |
| Significance (two-sided) | 0.042 | |
| 30 | ||
| DMFT and pH in patients with PWS | Correlation coefficient | −0.150 |
| Significance (two-sided) | 0.455 | |
| 27 |
p < 0.05 (Spearman’s Rho test)