Differential diagnosis of primary failure of eruption (PFE) with and without evidence of pathogenic mutations in the PTHR1 gene.

BACKGROUND

Primary failure of eruption (PFE) may be associated with pathogenic mutations in the PTHR1 gene. It has numerous manifestations and is characterized by severe posterior open bite. However, there are also phenotypically similar types of eruption anomalies not associated with a known pathogenic PTHR1 mutation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a distinction can be made between PTHR1-mutation carriers and noncarriers based on clinical and radiological findings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 36 patients with suspected PFE diagnoses were included and analyzed in accordance with specific clinical and radiographic criteria. In addition, all patients underwent Sanger DNA sequencing analysis of all coding sequences (and the immediate flanking intronic sequences) of the PTHR1 gene.

RESULTS

Of these patients, 23 exhibited a heterozygous pathogenic mutation in the PTHR1 gene (PTHR1-mutation carriers), while molecular genetic analysis revealed nosequence alteration in the other 13 patients (non-PTHR1-mutation carriers). Relevant family histories were obtained from 5 patients in the carrier group; hence, this group included a total of 13 familial and 10 simplex cases. The group of noncarriers revealed no relevant family histories. All patients in the carrier group met six of the clinical and radiographic criteria explored in this study: (1) posterior teeth more often affected; (2) eruption disturbance of an anterior tooth in association with additional posterior-teeth involvement; (3) affected teeth resorbing the alveolar bone located coronal to them; (4) involvement of both deciduous and permanent teeth; (5) impaired vertical alveolar-process growth; and (6) severe subsequent finding of posterior open bite. None of the analyzed criteria were, by contrast, met by all patients in the noncarrier group. All patients in the carrier group could be assigned to one of three classifications indicating the extent of eruption disturbance, whereas 4 of the 13 noncarriers presented none of these three patterns. The clinical and radiographic criteria employed in this study would have correctly identified 10 of the 13 PFE patients in the noncarrier group as possessing no detectable PTHR1 mutation.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of clinical and radiographic characteristics can heighten the specificity of ruling out suspected PTHR1 involvement in PFE patients. A hereditary element of PTHR1-associated PFE is clearly identifiable. More studies with more patients are needed to optimize the sensitivity of this preliminary approach on the differential identification of PTHR1-mutation carriers versus noncarriers by multivariate analysis.