| Literature DB >> 34956681 |
G Solinas1, V Grabesu2, M Lattari3, R Strinna1, N Arnould4, A A Amodeo5,6.
Abstract
According to our experience, the treatment with remineralising mousse based on biomimetic nanohydroxyapatite has the advantage of being easily implemented by all patients as it is economical and absolutely noninvasive. The following case report reports the results obtained from the use of a mousse based on biomimetic nanohydroxyapatite for the treatment of incisor and molar hypomineralisation. This case report illustrates the case of a 4-year-old patient who was diagnosed with MIH and was subjected to remineralising treatments at home for six months, at alternating periods. Throughout the observation period, the painful perception of the lesions was detected through an assessment scale, and the clinical appearance was documented photographically. One year after the diagnosis, all the elements involved no longer showed any symptoms.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34956681 PMCID: PMC8702361 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5291858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Case Rep Dent
Features for the diagnosis of MIH.
| Key features | Description |
|---|---|
| Bounded opacity | (i) Delimited opacity |
|
| |
| Loss of posteructive enamel | (i) Surface defect after tooth eruption |
|
| |
| Atypical restorations | (i) Size and shape of restorations not in accordance with carious images |
|
| |
| Molar extraction due to MIH | (i) The absence of a permanent first molar should be related to the other teeth |
|
| |
| Failure of a molar or incisor to erupt | (i) The permanent first molar or incisor to be examined has not yet been erupted |
Figure 1Timeline of interventions.
MIH treatment need index (MIH-THI).
| Grade | Description |
|---|---|
| Grade 0 | No MIH |
| Grade 1 | MIH without hypersensitivity, without defect |
| Grade 2 | MIH without hypersensitivity, with defect |
| 2a | <1/3 of the area involved |
| 2b | >1/3 of the area involved |
| 2c | >2/3 of the involved surface and/or defect close to the pulp or atypical extraction or restoration |
| Grade 3 | MIH with hypersensitivity, without defect |
| Grade 4 | MIH with hypersensitivity, with defect |
| 4a | <1/3 of the area involved |
| 4b | >1/3 < 2/3 of the surface involved |
| 4c | >2/3 of the involved surface and/or defect close to the pulp or atypical extraction or restoration |
Subdivision into sextants.
| Sextant 1 | Sextant 2 | Sextant 3 |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Sextant 6 | Sextant 5 | Sextant 4 |
Clinical case classification.
| Sextant 1 | Sextant 2 | Sextant 3 |
| Sextant 6 | Sextant 5 | Sextant 4 |
Figure 2Therapy plan based on the MIH-TNI in patients with low caries risk.
Figure 3Therapy plan based on the MIH-TNI in patients with high caries risk.
Figure 4Photo of the patient at T0, i.e., at the time of diagnosis.
Figure 5Wong-Baker face pain rating scale.
Figure 6Disposable small fluoride trays.
Figure 7T5 photos (photos six months after the start of treatment).
Figure 8Photos at T6 (photos one year after the start of treatment before triage placement).