Costacurta M, Maturo P, Bartolino M, Docimo R
Department of Odontostomatological Science, Paediatric Dentistry University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2010 Jan;3(1):12-9. Epub 2010 Nov 19.
AIM.: The aim of the clinical-statistic study was to evaluate the prevalence of the different oral manifestations in a sample of coeliac patients, in comparison with a control group of healthy subjects. Moreover, a second objective was to determine if the clinical oral examination is useful as a diagnostic tool of screening for atypical forms of coeliac disease (CD). METHODS.: The enrolment of 300 coeliac patients, aged between 4 and 13 years (mean age 8.16), was carried out at the Pediatric Dentistry Unit in patients sent from the Pediatric Gastroenterology Unit of the PTV Hospital, University of Rome Tor Vergata. The control group was composed of 300 healthy subjects, age-matched (mean age 8.29), enrolled from the Pediatric Dentistry Unit. The patients were examined for hard tissues (enamel hypoplasia, dental caries), soft tissues (recurrent aphthous stomatitis RAS, atrophic glossitis, geographic tongue) and delay dental eruption. Enamel defects were classified according to Aine's criteria, while dental caries was recorded as dmft/DMFT indices. Statistical analysis was carried out by using SPSS/PC+ Software. Differences between case and control groups were tested using Paired samples T-test, and Chi-Square Test, depending on the variable considered. The minimal level of significance of the differences was fixed at p≤0.05 for all the procedures. RESULTS.: Statistical differences between groups were observed for the prevalence of enamel defects (p=0.0001), RAS (p=0.005), delay in dental eruption (p=0.0001), but not for the prevalence of atrophic glossitis (p=0.664). Differences in symmetrical distribution and a chronologic coherence of enamel defects were statistically significant between CD and control groups (p=0.0001). Regarding dental caries, the coeliac patients had higher indexes of caries than healthy subjects, both in deciduous teeth (dmft 2.31±1.84 vs 1.42±1.13; p= 0.021) and permanent teeth (DMFT 2.97±1.74 vs 1.74±1.64; p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS.: The clinical oral examination should be considered a diagnostic tool for the characterization of subjects affected by silent-atypical forms of CD.
本临床统计学研究的目的是评估腹腔疾病患者样本中不同口腔表现的患病率，并与健康受试者对照组进行比较。此外，第二个目标是确定临床口腔检查是否可用作筛查非典型腹腔疾病（CD）的诊断工具。方法：在罗马第二大学托尔韦尔加塔分校PTV医院儿科胃肠病科送来的患者中，于儿科牙科对300名年龄在4至13岁（平均年龄8.16岁）的腹腔疾病患者进行了登记。对照组由300名年龄匹配（平均年龄8.29岁）的健康受试者组成，从儿科牙科登记入选。对患者进行了硬组织（釉质发育不全、龋齿）、软组织（复发性阿弗他口炎RAS、萎缩性舌炎、地图舌）以及出牙延迟情况的检查。釉质缺陷根据艾内标准进行分类，而龋齿记录为dmft/DMFT指数。使用SPSS/PC+软件进行统计分析。根据所考虑的变量，使用配对样本T检验和卡方检验来检验病例组和对照组之间的差异。所有程序中差异的最小显著性水平设定为p≤0.05。结果：观察到两组之间在釉质缺陷患病率（p = 0.0001）、RAS（p = 0.005）、出牙延迟（p = 0.0001）方面存在统计学差异，但在萎缩性舌炎患病率方面无差异（p = 0.664）。CD组和对照组之间釉质缺陷的对称分布差异和时间连贯性差异具有统计学意义（p = 0.0001）。关于龋齿，腹腔疾病患者无论是乳牙（dmft 2.31±1.84对1.42±1.13；p = 0.021）还是恒牙（DMFT 2.97±1.74对1.74±1.64；p = 0.0001）的龋齿指数均高于健康受试者。结论：临床口腔检查应被视为表征受隐匿性非典型CD影响的受试者的诊断工具。
