No abstract

The use of a standardised protocol, diagnostic and grading criteria will greatly enhance the quality of epidemiological studies of MIH.

In this paper, the current knowledge about Molar Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH) is presented. MIH is defined as hypomineralization of systemic origin of one to four permanent first molars frequently associated with affected incisors and these molars are related to major clinical problems in severe cases. At the moment, only limited data are available to describe the magnitude of the phenomenon. The prevalence of MIH in the different studies ranges from 3.6-25% and seems to differ in certain regions and birth cohorts. Several aetiological factors (for example, frequent childhood diseases) are mentioned as the cause of the defect. Children at risk should be monitored very carefully during the period of eruption of their first permanent molars. Treatment planning should consider the long-term prognosis of these teeth.

With the development of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) judgment criteria, there has been increasing interest worldwide in investigation of the prevalence of demarcated opacities in tooth enamel substance, known as molar–incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). However, the lack of a standardised system for the purpose of recording MIH data in epidemiological surveys has contributed greatly to the wide variations in the reported prevalence between studies. The present publication describes the rationale, development, and content of a scoring method for MIH diagnosis in epidemiological studies as well as clinic- and hospital-based studies. The proposed grading method allows separate classification of demarcated hypomineralisation lesions and other enamel defects identical to MIH. It yields an informative description of the severity of MIH-affected teeth in terms of the stage of visible enamel destruction and the area of tooth surface affected (i.e. lesion clinical status and extent, respectively). In order to preserve the maximum amount of information from a clinical examination consistent with the need to permit direct comparisons between prevalence studies, two forms of the charting are proposed, a short form for simple screening surveys and a long form desirable for prospective, longitudinal observational research where aetiological factors in demarcated lesions are to be investigated in tandem with lesions distribution. Validation of the grading method is required, and its reliability and usefulness need to be tested in different age groups and different populations.

In November 2014, a review of literature concerning prevalence data of Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation (MIH) and Hypomineralised Second Primary Molars (HSPM) was performed. A search of PubMed online databases was conducted for relevant articles published until November 2014. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were hand-searched. Studies were included after assessing the eligibility of the full-text article. Out of 1078 manuscripts, a total of 157 English written publications were selected based on title and abstract. Of these 157, 60 were included in the study and allocated as 52 MIH and 5 HSPM, and 3 for both MIH and HSPM. These studies utilised the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry judgment criteria, the modified index of developmental defects of enamel (mDDE) and self-devised criteria, and demonstrated a wide variation in the reported prevalence (MIH 2.9-44 %; HSPM 0-21.8 %). Most values mentioned were representative for specific areas. More studies were performed in cities compared with rural areas. A great variation was found in calibration methods, number of participants, number of examiners and research protocols between the studies. The majority of the prevalence studies also investigated possible aetiological factors. To compare MIH and HSPM prevalence and or aetiological data around the world, standardisation of such studies seems essential. Standardisation of the research protocol should include a clearly described sample of children (minimum number of 300 for prevalence and 1000 for aetiology studies) and use of the same calibration sets and methods whereas aetiological studies need to be prospective in nature. A standardised protocol for future MIH and HSPM prevalence and aetiology studies is recommended.