The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2014
A clinical multicenter study of orofacial features in 26 brazilian patients with different types of mucopolysaccharidosis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ribeiro Erlane Marques, Fonteles Cristiane S R, Freitas Adriana Bezerra, da Silva Alves Karla Shangela, Monteiro André Jalles, da Silva Carlos Antônio Bruno
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the orofacial features of 26 unrelated Brazilian patients with mucopolysaccharidosis and to verify any possible associations between these findings and specific types of mucopolysaccharidosis.
METHODS: Patients were diagnosed with mucopolysaccharidosis and clinically evaluated. Following consent, a clinical assessment form was completed. Facial and intraoral examination was performed by evaluating facial pattern, malocclusions, dental caries, and tooth identification.
RESULTS: Midface deficiency, increased lower facial third, anterior open bite, convex profile, macroglossia, gingival enlargement, and spaced arches were the most frequently observed features. These findings did not allow a differential diagnosis among the different types of mucopolysaccharidosis, except for pitting enamel, which significantly associated with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (P < .001). Open bite was associated with mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, III, and VI; however, only one patient with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA expressed this feature (P = .043).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pitted enamel in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis is most likely a feature of mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA; whereas, open bite is rarely observed in these patients. Orofacial features in mucopolysaccharidosis may help pediatric dentists recognize this disorder and minimize the delay between the initial signs/symptoms and diagnosis of the disease. Future studies should focus on the longitudinal manifestations, expression, and severity of mucopolysaccharidosis-associated orofacial anomalies.
METHODS: Patients were diagnosed with mucopolysaccharidosis and clinically evaluated. Following consent, a clinical assessment form was completed. Facial and intraoral examination was performed by evaluating facial pattern, malocclusions, dental caries, and tooth identification.
RESULTS: Midface deficiency, increased lower facial third, anterior open bite, convex profile, macroglossia, gingival enlargement, and spaced arches were the most frequently observed features. These findings did not allow a differential diagnosis among the different types of mucopolysaccharidosis, except for pitting enamel, which significantly associated with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (P < .001). Open bite was associated with mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, III, and VI; however, only one patient with mucopolysaccharidosis IVA expressed this feature (P = .043).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pitted enamel in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis is most likely a feature of mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA; whereas, open bite is rarely observed in these patients. Orofacial features in mucopolysaccharidosis may help pediatric dentists recognize this disorder and minimize the delay between the initial signs/symptoms and diagnosis of the disease. Future studies should focus on the longitudinal manifestations, expression, and severity of mucopolysaccharidosis-associated orofacial anomalies.