| Literature DB >> 35055575 |
Lucía Caeiro-Villasenín1, Clara Serna-Muñoz1, Amparo Pérez-Silva1, Ascensión Vicente-Hernández1, Andrea Poza-Pascual2, Antonio José Ortiz-Ruiz1.
Abstract
The objective was to determine whether trauma in primary dentition causes alterations in the development of permanent dentition. Searches were made in May 2020 using PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDES, Scopus, Lilacs, and Embase. Papers in English, German, and Spanish, without restrictions in the year of publication, were included. The quality of the studies was analyzed using the NOS Scale. The search retrieved 537 references, and seven studies were included for a qualitative analysis. The results showed that trauma to a deciduous tooth can damage the bud of the permanent tooth. Enamel discoloration and/or hypoplasia were the most common sequelae in the permanent teeth after trauma to the primary predecessor. The type and severity of sequelae in the permanent tooth are associated with the development phase of the bud. Children with trauma of their primary teeth should receive checkups until the eruption of the permanent teeth for the early diagnosis and treatment of possible sequelae. Intrusion of the primary tooth was the trauma that caused the most damage and enamel alterations the most frequent sequelae.Entities:
Keywords: dental injury; dental trauma; permanent teeth; primary teeth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055575 PMCID: PMC8775964 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19020754
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1PRISMA Diagram.
Methodological quality for cross-sectional and cohort studies, assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale *.
| Study | Country | Study Design | Criteria ** | Total Score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection | Comparability | Outcome and Exposure | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||||
| Von Arx and Colleagues, 1993 [ | Switzerland | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | |
| Odersjö and Colleagues, 2001 [ | Sweden | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Christophersen and Colleagues, 2005 [ | Denmark | Cross- sectional | X | X | X | X | 4 | ||||
| Sennhenn-Kirchner and Colleagues, 2006 [ | Germany | Cohort | X | X | X | X | 4 | ||||
| Altun and Colleagues, 2009 [ | Turkey | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | ||
| Da Silva Assunção and Colleagues, 2009 [ | Brazil | Cross- sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Ribeiro do Espírito Santo and Colleagues, 2009 [ | Brazil | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Carvalho and Colleagues, 2010 [ | Brazil | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | ||
| Guedes de Amorim and Colleagues, 2010 [ | Brazil | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Cueto Urbina and Colleagues, 2012 [ | Chile | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Soares and Colleagues, 2014 [ | Brazil | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | 3 | |||||
| Mendoza-Mendoza and Colleagues, 2014 [ | Spain | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | ||
| Bardellini and Colleagues, 2017 [ | Italy | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Silva de Amorim and Colleagues, 2018 [ | Brazil | Cross-sectional | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
| Graziele Martioli and Colleagues, 2019 [ | Brazil | Cohort | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||
* Source: Wells and Colleagues, 2000; ** We used the following criteria to assess the methodological quality of each study: representativeness of the exposed cohort (1); selection of the nonexposed cohort (2); ascertainment of exposure (3); demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of study (4); comparability on the basis of confounding control in the design or analysis (5); assessment of outcome (6); duration of follow-up period (7); and adequacy of follow up (8). An “X” represents 1 point contributing to the total score, which represents the level of methodological quality we found for each study. Determining the methodological quality is important for determining the validity of the study results.
Methodological quality for case-control studies, assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale *.
| Study | Country | Study Design | Criteria ** | Total Score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection | Comparability | Outcome and Exposure | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||||
| Andreasen and Colleagues, 1971 [ | Denmark | Case-control | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | ||
| Andreasen and Colleagues, 1972 [ | Denmark | Case-control | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | |
| Machado Lenzi and Colleagues, 2018 [ | Brazil | Case-control | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | |
* Source: Wells and Colleagues, 2000; ** We used the following criteria to assess the methodological quality of each study: adequate case definition (1); representativeness of the case participants (2); selection of control participants (3); definition of control participants (4); comparability on the basis of confounding control in the design or analysis (5); assessment of exposure (6); same methods for case control participants (7); and nonresponse rate (8). An “X” represents 1 point contributing to the total score. The total score represents the methodological quality we found for each study. Determining the methodological quality is important for determining the validity of the study results. Future researchers can note the placement of points for each study in this systematic review as a guideline for focusing the goals of future studies to increase the quality of the research on the topic.
Summary of the high-quality cohort and cross-sectional studies.
| Study | Study Participants | Most Affected Teeth | Type of Primary Teeth Trauma | Most Damaging Trauma | Time When Trauma Occurred | Age at Dental Examination | Consequences in Permanent Dentition | Sequelae Prevalence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Von Arx and Colleagues, 1992 [ | 114 children | Central upper primary incisors (n = 161, 63%) | Intrusion (15%) | Intrusion | Mean age at the time of the trauma was 3.6 years old | Mean age at the time of re-examination 8.7 years | 23% (n = 33) | ||
| Altun and Colleagues, 2009 [ | 78 children | Maxillary incisors (93.47%, | Intrusion | Intrusion | Most injuries occurred between 13 and 36 months | Mean age 22.32 ± 9.72 months | 53.6% (n = 74) | NS correlation between age of intrusion and frequency of subsequent developmental | |
| Carvalho and Colleagues, 2010 [ | 307 children | Right central primary incisor | Intrusion | Intrusion | Children with ages from 1 to 4 years old were the most affected | NP | 68.8% (n = 84) | NS Correlation between the age of intrusion and the developmental disturbances on permanent teeth | |
| Mendoza-Mendoza and Colleagues, 2014 [ | 879 children | Upper central primary incisors (86.9%) | Subluxation (47.29%) | Intrusion | Most common age range for injuries in deciduous teeth was 1–3 years old | 43 children: 1 year old | 4.5 % |
NP: Not provided; NS: not significant; TI: Total intrusion; PI: Partial intrusion.
Summary of the high-quality case-control studies.
| Study | Study Participants | Most Affected Teeth | Kind of Primary Teeth Trauma | Most Damaging Trauma | Time when Trauma Occurred | Age at Dental Examination | Consequences in Permanent Dentition | Sequelae Prevalence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andreasen and Colleagues, 1971 [ | Maxillary central primary incisors | Subluxation: 35 primary teeth | Intrusion (69%, n = 25) | 62 children: 0 to 2 years old | NP | TG: 41% (n = 88) | |||
| Andreasen and Colleagues, 1973 [ | Only anterior teeth were included | Luxations and fractures | NP | NP | NP | Main material: TG: 57.8% | |||
| Machado Lenzi and Colleagues, 2018 [ | 124 children | Upper central primary incisors (n = 172, 80%) | Intrusion (38.7%) | Intrusion | Enamel fracture mainly for the 2–3 years age group | <1 year: 1 child | TG: 28.9% (n = 62) |
<0.001 |
NP: Not provided; TG: Trauma group; CG: Control group; NTG: Non-trauma group.