Laureano et al. (2020), Brazil |
Cross-sectional |
n = 466 G1 (with MIH) = 56 G2 (no MIH) = 410 |
8–10 |
Ghanin 2019 |
DFA |
CFSS-DS answered by patients |
G1 = 27% have DFA G2 = 20.9 % have DFA PR (95% CI) G1 = 1.27 (0.89 - 1.82) G2 = 1 |
“MIH was not associated with dental fear.”
|
The sample was relatively large and was representative of the population. MIH was not signficantly associated with DFA. |
Özükoç (2019), Turkey |
Cross-sectional |
n = 112 G1 (with MIH) = 58 mild MIH = 26 moderate MIH = 19 severe MIH = 13 G2 (no MIH) = 54 |
8–12 |
Not mentioned |
DFA |
CFSS-DS answered by patients |
G1 mild = 24.7 (SD 13.3) G1 moderate = 26.3 (SD 15.2) G1 severe = 41.5 (SD 14.5) G2 = 23.5 (SD 12.3) |
“The study showed that there is actually a relationship between the severity of MIH and DFA, and DFA increases as MIH also increases.”
|
Sample is not representative and is relatively small. The criteria used for the assessment of exposure were not described. |
Menocin et al. (2018), Brazil |
Cross-sectional |
n = 731 G1 (with MIH) = 88 G2 (no MIH) = 643 |
8 |
EAPD |
DFA |
DAQ answered by parents |
G1: 64.8% (57/ 88) G2: 54.1% (348/ 643) |
“Although the prevalence of DFA was higher among schoolchildren with MIH, the association between these two conditions was not significant.”
|
The study had a representative sample and confounding factors (caries experience and age) were controlled for. |
Arrow (2017), Australia |
Cohort |
n = 88 G1 (Demarc. Opac.) = 18 G2 (no Enamel Defects) = 26 G3 (Diffuse Opac.) = 44 |
14.7 (13.7–15.8) SD = 0.3 |
DDE |
DFA |
MCDASf answered by patients |
Overall mean = 20.6 (SD = 7.5) |
No significant association between the presence of enamel defects and DFA. . |
Data related to DFA and enamel defects were cross-sectional. We assume that demarcated opacities are MIH, but the diagnosis did not follow specific criteria for MIH. Confounding factors were controlled. Caries experience was considered in the analysis and age range was narrow. The sample was relatively small. |
G1: 18.9 (SD = 7.1) G2: 21.0 (SD = 8.2) |
G3: 20.2 (SD = 6.8) |
Kosma et al. (2016), Greece |
Cross-sectional |
n = 2335 G1 (with MIH) = 498 G2 (no MIH) = 1837 |
8 (n = 1179) 14 (n = 1156) |
EAPD |
DFA |
CFSS-DS answered by patients |
G1: mean = 26.5 (SD 9.6) G2: mean = 26.2 (SD 9.9) |
“No statistically significant difference was found between the mean CFSS-DS score in children with and without MIH.”
|
Study with representative sample. Age was controlled for in the selection of participants. Caries experience was not controlled for. |
|
Jalevik & Klingberg (2012), Sweden |
Case-control |
n = 67 G1 (severe MIH) = 30 G2 (no MIH) = 37 |
18 |
DDE |
DFA |
CFSS-DS answered by patients |
G1: mean = 22.0 (SD 6.2); CFSS-DS > 29 = 13.3% (4/30). G2: mean = 21.7 (SD 5.8); CFSS-DS > 29 = 16.2% (6/37). |
“DBMPs were still more common in patients with severe MIH, whereas DFA did not differ between patients with severe MIH and controls.”
|
As the participants were selected by the exposure (MIH) and not by the outcome (DFA), we assume that the study followed a cross-sectional design. The sample was representative, but relatively small. All the children were included in the cohort with 8-year-olds followed up to the age of 18 years. DFA was assessed at a specific point in time. Data on DBMPs were retrieved retrospectively from dental records. Age was controlled for in the sample selection. Caries experience was not controlled for in the analysis. |
DBMPs |
Notes in the dental records |
G1: 20% 6/30 G2: 2.7% 1/37 |
Jalevik & Klingberg (2002), Sweden |
Case-control |
n = 73 |
7-8 y |
DDE |
DFA |
CFSS-DS answered by parents |
G1: mean = 23.3 (SD 7.5); CFSS-DS > 29 = 25% (8/32). G2: mean = 20.8 (SD 5.4); CFSS-DS > 29 = 4.9% (2/41). |
“There were more children in the MIH-group than in the control group who had high levels of DFA (CFSS-DS scores ≥ 29) and DBMPs.”
|
As the participants were selected by the exposure (MIH) and not by the outcome (DFA), we assume that the study followed a cross-sectional design. Age of the participants was controlled for, but dental caries was not considered as a confounding factor. The sample was representative, but relatively small. Data on DBMPs were retrieved retrospectively from dental records. |
G1 (severe MIH) = 32 |
G2 (no MIH) = 41 |
DBMPs |
Notes in the dental records |
G1: 46.9% (15/32) G2: 2.4% (1/41) |