Response Evidence for an association between prematurity and enamel defects in permanent teeth is still relatively sparse Dear Editor, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify any possible sources of misunderstanding related to our systematic review (1), as raised by BROG ARDH-ROTH et al. (2). As stated, our interest was to report on the risk of developing demarcated opacities, diffuse opacities, and hypoplasia in preterm children, as we found it much more interesting to study the different outcomes sepa- rately in order to elucidate differences in the pathogen- esis. For this reason, our main focus was to select results on these three specific outcomes, if possible. BROG ARDH- ROTH et al. reported demarcated opacities as an inte- grated part of the molar–incisor hypomineralization diagnostic criterion. In our Table 3, it may have been more precise if we, while quoting the paper by BROG ARDH-ROTH et al., had left out the subheading ‘DDE (including MIH)’ and replaced 0 opacities 0 with ‘diffuse opacities’. In this way we would have eliminated any misunderstanding. The numbers quoted in our Table 3 are, though, correct. Concerning the age of the children in the study by BROG ARDH-ROTH et al., it is stated in the title and abstract that the age of the children studied was 10–12 yr. However, in the results section an age range of 9.8–12.9 yr for the preterm children and a range of 9.5–12.9 yr for the control children were reported. However, we found this inaccuracy of no particular importance for the understanding and interpretation of the results in the manuscript. Concerning our conclusions, we still find that the evidence of an association between prematurity and enamel defects in permanent teeth is relatively sparse (3). Thus, we feel that there is room for future studies. References 1. JACOBSEN PE, HAUBEK D, HENRIKSEN TB, OSTERGAARD JR, POULSEN S. Developmental enamel defects in children born preterm: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Sci 2014; 122:7–14. 2. BROGARDH-ROTH S, MATSSON L, KLINGBERG G. Molar-incisor hypomineralization and oral hygiene in 10- to-12-yr-old Swedish children born preterm. Eur J Oral Sci 2011; 119: 33–39. 3. OXFORD CENTRE FOR EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. Levels of Evidence (March 2009). www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence- based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/ Accessed June 19, 2014. Pernille Endrup Jacobsen 1 Dorte Haubek 1 Tine Brink Henriksen 2 John Østergaard 2 Sven Poulsen 1 1 Section for Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University; 2 Department of Pediatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark E-mail: [email protected] Eur J Oral Sci 2014; 122: 361 DOI: 10.1111/eos.12145 Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved Ó 2014 Eur J Oral Sci European Journal of Oral Sciences

Evidence for an association between prematurity and enamel defects in permanent teeth is still relatively sparse

Download PDF Report

Upload
sven
View
217
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Response

Evidence for an association between prematurity and enameldefects in permanent teeth is still relatively sparse

Dear Editor,Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify any

possible sources of misunderstanding related to oursystematic review (1), as raised by BROG�ARDH-ROTH et al.(2).

As stated, our interest was to report on the risk ofdeveloping demarcated opacities, diffuse opacities, andhypoplasia in preterm children, as we found it muchmore interesting to study the different outcomes sepa-rately in order to elucidate differences in the pathogen-esis. For this reason, our main focus was to select resultson these three specific outcomes, if possible. BROG�ARDH-ROTH et al. reported demarcated opacities as an inte-grated part of the molar–incisor hypomineralizationdiagnostic criterion. In our Table 3, it may have beenmore precise if we, while quoting the paper byBROG�ARDH-ROTH et al., had left out the subheading‘DDE (including MIH)’ and replaced 0opacities0 with‘diffuse opacities’. In this way we would have eliminatedany misunderstanding. The numbers quoted in our Table3 are, though, correct.

Concerning the age of the children in the study byBROG�ARDH-ROTH et al., it is stated in the title andabstract that the age of the children studied was10–12 yr. However, in the results section an age rangeof 9.8–12.9 yr for the preterm children and a range of9.5–12.9 yr for the control children were reported.However, we found this inaccuracy of no particular

importance for the understanding and interpretation ofthe results in the manuscript.

Concerning our conclusions, we still find that theevidence of an association between prematurity andenamel defects in permanent teeth is relatively sparse (3).Thus, we feel that there is room for future studies.

References

1. JACOBSEN PE, HAUBEK D, HENRIKSEN TB, OSTERGAARD JR,POULSEN S. Developmental enamel defects in children bornpreterm: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Sci 2014; 122: 7–14.

2. BROGARDH-ROTH S, MATSSON L, KLINGBERG G. Molar-incisorhypomineralization and oral hygiene in 10- to-12-yr-old Swedishchildren born preterm. Eur J Oral Sci 2011; 119: 33–39.

3. OXFORD CENTRE FOR EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. Levels ofEvidence (March 2009). www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/ Accessed June 19,2014.

Pernille Endrup Jacobsen1

Dorte Haubek1

Tine Brink Henriksen2

John Østergaard2

Sven Poulsen11Section for Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Dentistry,

Health, Aarhus University;2Department of Pediatrics, Aarhus University Hospital,

Aarhus, DenmarkE-mail: [email protected]

� 2014 Eur J Oral Sci

European Journal ofOral Sciences