Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 497–497 | Cite as

Letter to the Editor

  • M. Deus Moura LimaEmail author
  • N. S. Andrade
  • R. J. P. B. Teixeira
Letter to the Editor
  • 418 Downloads

Keywords

Future Study Standardise Protocol Rapid Progression Paediatric Dentistry Carious Lesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We read with great interest a paper recently published in the European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (2015) by MEC Elfrink, A Ghanin, DJ Manton and KL Weerheijm entitled “Standardised studies on molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM): a need”. It seems to be the first time that authors describe and discuss a standardised protocol for future MIH and HSPM prevalence and aetiology studies. We thank the authors for this contribution, which will improve future studies about MIH and HSPM in order to provide comparisons.

We agree with the proposed guideline, with regard to the calibration, but we would like to comment about the age proposed by the authors for diagnosing HSPM (5 years old). Some studies reported that the teeth that are the most often affected by caries in the primary dentition are the second primary molars (Elfrink et al. 2006, 2010). Hypomineralised molars frequently suffer posteruptive enamel breakdown and severe carious lesions (Elfrink et al. 2008, 2010). Moreover, children with HSPM frequently display a more rapid progression of caries (Ghanim et al. 2013), and the lesions become more severe as the children increase in age (Ghanim et al. 2013). Consequently, severe carious lesions could leave some hypomineralised defects unnoticed and thus decrease their reported prevalence (Lunardelli and Peres 2005). Odontogenic differentiation of the second primary molars begins during the 19th week of gestation (Hu et al. 2014), and its eruption is completed by the 30th month of life (GunaShekhar and Tenny 2010). Therefore we suggest 3 years as the optimal age for diagnosing HSPM.

References

  1. Elfrink ME, Veerkamp JS, Kalsbeek H. Caries pattern in primary molars in Dutch 5-year-old children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7:236–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Elfrink MEC, Schuller AA, Weerheijm KL, Veerkamp JSJ. Hypomineralized second primary molars: prevalence data in Dutch 5-year-olds. Caries Res. 2008;42:282–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Elfrink MEC, Schuller AA, Veerkamp JS, Poorterman JH, Moll HA, ten Cate BJ. Factors increasing the caries risk of second primary molars in 5-year-old Dutch children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20:151–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ghanim A, Manton D, Mariño R, Morgan M, Bailey D. Prevalence of demarcated hypomineralisation defects in second primary molars in Iraqi children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;23:48–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. GunaShekhar M, Tenny J. Longitudinal study of age and order of eruption of primary teeth in Indian children. J Clin Exp Dent. 2010;2(3):e113–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu X, Xu S, Lin C, Zhang L, Chen Y, Zhang Y. Precise chronology of differentiation of developing human primary dentition. Histochem Cell Biol. 2014;141:221–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lunardelli SE, Peres MA. Prevalence and distribution of developmental enamel defects in the primary dentition of pre-school children. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19:144–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Deus Moura Lima
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. S. Andrade
    • 1
  • R. J. P. B. Teixeira
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Dentistry Clinic, School of DentistryFederal University of PiauíTeresinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations