Molar-incisor hypomineralisation: an updated view for aetiology 20 years later

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. G. Bussaneli ◽  
A. R. Vieira ◽  
L. Santos-Pinto ◽  
M. Restrepo
Keyword(s):  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation ◽  
Incisor Hypomineralisation

scholarly journals An update of treatment modalities in children and adolescents with teeth affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Somani ◽  
G. D. Taylor ◽  
E. Garot ◽  
P. Rouas ◽  
N. A. Lygidakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation ◽  
Fissure Sealants ◽  
Preformed Metal Crowns ◽  
Incisor Hypomineralisation

Abstract Purpose To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, ‘What are the treatment options for teeth in children affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation?’ Methods An electronic search of the following electronic databases was completed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Google Scholar and Open Grey identifying studies from 1980 to 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The studies were screened, data extracted and calibration was completed by two independent reviewers. Results Of 6220 potential articles, 34 studies were included. Twenty studies investigated management of molars with fissure sealants, glass ionomer cement, polyacid modified resin composite, composite resin, amalgam, preformed metal crowns, laboratory-manufactured crowns and extractions. In four articles management of incisors with microabrasion, resin-infiltration and a combination of approaches was reported. Eight studies looked at strategies to mineralise MIH-affected teeth and/or reduce hypersensitivity. Two studies investigated patient-centred outcomes following treatment. Due to the heterogeneity between the studies, meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusion The use of resin-based fissure sealants, preformed metal crowns, direct composite resin restorations and laboratory-made restorations can be recommended for MIH-affected molars. There is insufficient evidence to support specific approaches for the management of affected incisors. Products containing CPP-ACP may be beneficial for MIH-affected teeth.

scholarly journals The control of pain due to dentin hypersensitivity in individuals with molar–incisor hypomineralisation: a protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044653
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Taboada Sobral ◽  
Elaine Marcilio Santos ◽  
Ana Cecilia Aranha ◽  
Paulo Vinícius Soares ◽  
Caroline Moraes Moriyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Dentin Hypersensitivity ◽  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Sensitive Teeth ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Incisor Hypomineralisation

IntroductionDentin hypersensitivity (DH) is defined as high sensitivity of the vital dentin when exposed to thermal, chemical or tactile stimuli. Two mechanisms are required for the occurrence of DH: (1) the dentin must be exposed and (2) the dentinal tubules must be open and connected to the pulp. Molar–incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) is a qualitative abnormality of a genetic origin that affects tooth enamel and, in most cases, is accompanied by DH. The control of tooth sensitivity is fundamental to the successful treatment of MIH. The aim of the proposed randomised, controlled, clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of different protocols for the control of DH in patients with teeth affected by MIH.Methods and analysisOne hundred and forty patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be allocated to four groups. Group 1 will be the control group (placebo). In Group 2, sensitive teeth will be sealed with PermaSeal (Ultradent). In Group 3, sensitive teeth will receive low-level laser (LLL, AsGaAl) at a wavelength of 780 nm (Laser XT Therapy, DMC, São Carlos, Brazil). In Group 4, sensitive teeth will be treated with both LLL and PermaSeal (Ultradent). DH will be evaluated 15 min after the application of the treatments and the patients will be reevaluated 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after the treatments. The primary outcome of this study is change in pain/sensitivity, when evaluated through a Visual Analogue Scale, to determine the effectiveness of the proposed treatments, as well as differences among the evaluation times for each proposed treatment.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been ethically approved by the local medical ethical committee (protocol number: 4.020.261). Results will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04407702.

scholarly journals Vital bleaching for children with dental anomalies: EAPD members’ survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 565-571
Author(s):  
J. Monteiro ◽  
P. F. Ashley ◽  
S. Parekh
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation ◽  
Personal Beliefs ◽  
Dental Anomalies ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Private Practices ◽  
Incisor Hypomineralisation

Abstract Aim Understand EAPD members’ practices of vital bleaching for children with dental anomalies. Methods An anonymous online survey sent via EAPD in January 2019, consisting of 13 questions with possible multiple answers and free text. Results 110 responses from 24 countries were obtained. The majority worked in hospitals/universities (n = 69, 63%) or private practices (n = 50, 46%) and were specialists (n = 62, 57%) or senior academics (n = 35, 32%). Most respondents (n = 74 68%) did not provide vital bleaching for children. 88 respondents (80%) belonged to EU: of these, 46 (52%) were not aware of bleaching regulations. For respondents who provided bleaching 26 (72%) undertook home bleaching, using 10% carbamide peroxide (n = 21, 58%), most commonly for 2 weeks (n = 14, 39%), following establishment of the permanent dentition (n = 21, 58%). Deciding factors included: extent (n = 27, 75%) and shade (n = 26, 72%) of discolouration and child being teased by peers (n = 23, 64%). Main reasons for not bleaching included: concerns with side effects (n = 41; 55%) and not agreeing with bleaching (n = 23, 31%). Dentists who did not bleach managed a range of conditions, most frequently molar-incisor hypomineralisation (n = 57; 77%). The majority provided composite restorations with removal of tooth structure (n = 50; 68%) with a number opting for no treatment (n = 27, 37%). Conclusion This study shows wide variations in treatment of children’s dental anomalies across Europe. Fears of adverse effects and personal beliefs seemed to be the main deterrents to bleaching in children. Clinicians who provided bleaching tended to opt for more conservative techniques and to take children’s concerns into consideration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document