BackgroundOrodental diseases include several clinically and genetically heterogeneous disorders that can present in isolation or as part of a genetic syndrome. Due to the vast number of genes implicated in these disorders, establishing a molecular diagnosis can be challenging. We aimed to develop a targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay to diagnose mutations and potentially identify novel genes mutated in this group of disorders.MethodsWe designed an NGS gene panel that targets 585 known and candidate genes in orodental disease. We screened a cohort of 101 unrelated patients without a molecular diagnosis referred to the Reference Centre for Oro-Dental Manifestations of Rare Diseases, Strasbourg, France, for a variety of orodental disorders including isolated and syndromic amelogenesis imperfecta (AI), isolated and syndromic selective tooth agenesis (STHAG), isolated and syndromic dentinogenesis imperfecta, isolated dentin dysplasia, otodental dysplasia and primary failure of tooth eruption.ResultsWe discovered 21 novel pathogenic variants and identified the causative mutation in 39 unrelated patients in known genes (overall diagnostic rate: 39%). Among the largest subcohorts of patients with isolated AI (50 unrelated patients) and isolated STHAG (21 unrelated patients), we had a definitive diagnosis in 14 (27%) and 15 cases (71%), respectively. Surprisingly, COL17A1 mutations accounted for the majority of autosomal-dominant AI cases.ConclusionsWe have developed a novel targeted NGS assay for the efficient molecular diagnosis of a wide variety of orodental diseases. Furthermore, our panel will contribute to better understanding the contribution of these genes to orodental disease.Trial registration numbersNCT01746121 and NCT02397824.

No abstract

A comprehensive review of periodontal dressings is presented. The rationale for the application of dressings, their advantages and disadvantages are described. Tissue reactions to dressings and the therapeutic and adverse effects of antimicrobial agents used in dressings are discussed. The present status and value of a surgical dressing is critically assessed in view of recent studies which indicate that the routine use of dressings in postsurgical care may be either unnecessary or undesirable.

As with collagen, elastin is a structural macromolecule of the gingiva. These components play an important role in gingival function and in the resistance of the periodontium to daily aggressions. Unlike genetic diseases characterized by impairment of collagen macrofibrils, it is suggested that the hemizygous gene encoding elastin does not result in periodontal disease. In addition there is an existence of a possible concordance between the elastin gene haploinsufficiency and the periodontal phenotype. There might be some adaptive process to this deficiency.

The use of WHO or ICDAS-II method changed the proportion of caries-free children but not the clinical caries risk factors associated with caries experience.

The Soprolife was a valid instrument providing reproducible results, particularly for primary teeth.

The study aimed to compare the efficacy of three caries removal techniques—complete caries removal (CCR), selective caries removal (SCR), and stepwise caries removal (SWR)—for deep carious lesions in vital temporary teeth by conducting a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Electronic databases (PubMed [MEDLINE], Cochrane Library, EMBASE) were searched for corresponding references up to 31 May 2019. Possible outcomes were pulp exposure, pulpo‐periodontal complications, or restorative failures. Three reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. Meta‐analyses for intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol scenarios were performed using Revman5. Of 1374 potentially eligible articles, ten relevant references corresponding to eight studies were included. Pooled results showed decreased risk of pulp exposure after SCR (OR: 0.10, 95% CI [0.04, 0.25]) or SWR (OR: 0.20, 95% CI [0.09, 0.44]), compared with CCR. There was a higher risk of composite restorative failure (OR: 2.61, 95% CI [1.05, 6.49]) using USPHS criteria, after SCR compared with CCR only in intention‐to‐treat analysis. Risk of clinical or radiographic failure of pulpo‐periodontal complications was unchanged when compared with SCR and CCR or SWR. SCR and SWR may result in lower pulp exposure risk than CCR. RCTs with lower risk of bias, higher power, and longer follow‐up are required to choose between these three caries removal techniques for deep carious lesions in vital temporary teeth.

No abstract