These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Analysis of craniofacial development in children with hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia.
    Author: Johnson EL, Roberts MW, Guckes AD, Bailey LJ, Phillips CL, Wright JT.
    Journal: Am J Med Genet; 2002 Nov 01; 112(4):327-34. PubMed ID: 12376932.
    Abstract:
    Ectodermal dysplasias (ED) are a heterogeneous group of inheritable disorders characterized by abnormal development of embryologic ectoderm derivatives. The purposes of this study were to: 1) create baseline cephalometric norms for male children with ED; 2) assess craniofacial growth and development in hypohidrotic ED male children with severe hypodontia, compared with non-ED children with class I dental relationships; 3) compare the craniofacial morphology of titanium dental implant-treated ED males with non-implant-treated ED males; and 4) correlate the severity of hypodontia to craniofacial dysmorphology. Cephalometric radiographs of class I individuals and implant-treated and nontreated ED groups were used to evaluate craniofacial morphology. Traditional cephalometric landmarks and measurements were used to compare groups using the generalized estimate equation analysis. Age, gender, and the number of permanent maxillary teeth present had a significant (P =.01) explanatory relationship with the craniofacial measures when comparing untreated ED children to norms. Mean craniofacial differences between ED and non-ED children still existed when the explanatory effects of these variables were controlled, indicating dysmorphology in several craniofacial structures (e.g., cranial base, mandibular length). The number of missing maxillary permanent teeth was significantly related with craniofacial dysmorphology in the ED population. Craniofacial morphology did not differ significantly between implant-treated and nontreated ED children, suggesting that treatment with intraosseous dental implants, as applied in this population, did not rescue normal craniofacial growth and development.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]