Temporary restorative treatment in children and adolescents with amelogenesis imperfecta : Scoping review

s and letters to the editor were excluded. The following electronic databases were used: Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Ebsco, Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Manual searches in the reference lists of the included articles were also carried out. Finally, a search in Google Scholar restricted to the first 100 hits was performed. Duplicates were eliminated upon identification. The search covered a period between the years of 2011 and 2016. PRISMA guidelines were used for reporting the review. The evidence ranking was carried out by means of the Oxford criteria. Results: Six articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in this scoping review. Three articles were case reports, one was a review and two were original studies. For the treatment of AI, direct or indirect composite resins were the most commonly used material of choice in the retrieved studies because they demonstrate greater longevity, aesthetics and function compared to the other materials used. Conclusions: Among children and adolescents with AI, the temporary restorative treatment that demonstrated better long-term results in permanent teeth was the direct and indirect composite resins. However, high quality studies should be conducted to confirm the results presented herein.


INTRODUCTION.
Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) is a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous hereditary disorders that affect the enamel of the teeth, either in quality or quantity. 1,2The prevalence of AI is from 1/700 to 17/10,000. Studies have shown values ranging from 43/10,000 in Turkey, 14/10,000 in Sweden, 10/10,000 in Argentina and 1.25/10,000 in Israel.These values indicate that the overall mean prevalence is 1/200. 84][5] According to Witkop (1989), AI can be classified into four main types: hypoplastic AI, hypomaturation, hypocalcification, hypoplastic hypomaturation with taurodontism. 11Regardless of the subtype, clinical findings reveal similar oral complications, including abnormal color and enamel texture, dental caries, dental hypersensitivity, reduction of the vertical dimension, and alterations in aesthetics. 2 The challenges faced by dentists in managing a patient with AI are numerous.In pediatric dentistry, this is further intensified due to a child's lack of dental healthcare experience, self-perception, dental anxiety and parental expectations, which further complicates their treatment.Dental treatment for individuals with AI varies from prevention to oral rehabilitation and orthognathic surgery.Regarding restorative treatment, the management of this group of patients is particularly important since a large body of restorative dental treatments are available, such as resin fillings, amalgam, ionomers and crowns.Treatment aims to control sensitivity and re-establish aesthetics and function.However, the clinician may face challenges about the adhesion, retention and longevity of the restorations.The general dentist or pediatric dentistry team provide early and comprehensive treatment for AI patients, which will allow timely and effective care for affected individuals. 4,5However, in the literature, there are few reviews of the long-term follow-up of different modalities of restoratives treatment for children and adolescents with AI, including ceramic or ceramometallic crowns, glass ionomer cements, composite resins and overdentures.
A summary may be useful for professionals to acquire knowledge and to guide and direct future investigations in the treatment of AI. 12 The aim of this scoping review is to answer the following clinical question: Among children and adolescents with AI, what is the temporary restorative treatment with better long-term results in permanent teeth?

MATERIALS AND METHODS.
The reporting of this scoping review complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. 13ligibility criteria The inclusion criteria for this scoping review were as follows: case reports, literature reviews and original studies that evaluated the efficacy of restorative materials for teeth of children and adolescents with amelogenesis imperfecta.Editorials, meeting abstracts and letters to editor were excluded.No restriction to language of publication was imposed.
Information sources A computerized search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Ebsco, Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) from 2001 to 2016.Manual searches in the reference lists of the included articles were also carried out.Finally, a search in Google Scholar restricted to the first 100 hits was performed.Duplicates were eliminated upon identification.

Search
The

Study selection
The selection of the included articles for this critical review was carried out by two review authors.Initially, titles/abstracts were evaluated independently by both authors.The titles/abstracts that did not show any suitability for inclusion were excluded.
For the references that did not provide enough information for a decision based on abstracts, the fulltexts were retrieved and read.Discrepancies between the two review authors were resolved by means of discussion.

Data extraction
Data extraction was also carried out by two review authors independently.Divergences were resolved by means of discussion.If necessary, a third party was involved.

Data items
The following items were extracted: publication year, authors' name, article title, article objective, simple size, results and conclusions, type of study, evidence level and clinical recommendation.

Evidence ranking of the studies
The evidence ranking of the included studies was based on the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM).The OCEBM Levels of Evidence consists in a series of steps designed to identify the papers with the best evidence and less risk of bias and to generate grades of recommendation based on level of evidence. 14The evidence ranking was performed by two authors.Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS.
Of the 9572 studies identified, six were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which were case reports, 6,7,15 an observational analytical, 3 a retrospective cross-sectional study, 6 and a Cochrane systematic review. 7Figure 1 displays the flow chart of the study.
According to the review of the selected articles, the restoration materials used were direct and indirect resin restorations, steel crowns in molars, glass ionomer restorations in permanent molars, porcelain crowns, celluloid plastic forms, resin-modified glass ionomer resins, amalgam restorations, restorations with steel crowns with front aesthetic, and crown restorations with zirconium reinforcement.
Only one of the articles evaluated the longevity of the restoration until 18-20 years in terms of its aesthetics and function, 7 that is, patients in whom there was no need for repeated treatment or other reinterventions.The longevity of the restorations is assessed according to the complications presented, such as: recurrent caries, failure of the restoration, pigmentation, pain and sensitivity.The characteristics of the included articles are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

DISCUSSION.
In general, in all articles, the duration of treatment in patients with AI included the growth period until the permanent dentition had fully erupted.Of these, only three articles (an analytical observational, a cross-sectional retrospective and a systematic review) present a level of evidence 2b, 3b and 1a and a degree of recommendation B, C and A, respectively.
Oral outcomes may have psychological and social consequences for children and adolescents, 18 and their parents 19, 20 and families. 21The literature has recognized that AI may have negative psychosocial effects on the affected individuals.Due to the unfavorable aesthetics, patients may present low self-esteem. 22The quality of life of these individuals is also negatively affected due to impairment of quality of life domains, such as oral symptoms, functional limitations, emotional and social discomfort.Therefore, to have a more comprehensive evaluation of their patient, the clinician should supplement the use of normative dental indices with subjective measures.Aware of the oral health condition of the patient and their psychosocial situation, the dentist may provide a more individualized restorative treatment for the individual. 23ccording to the review of the selected articles, the most often used restorative materials were: restorations in direct and indirect resins in both anterior and posterior teeth presenting greater longevity, aesthetics and function compared to the other materials used for AI treatment.However, composite resin restorations on fewer than four surfaces and composite resin strip crowns show a high percentage of failure. 3Additionally, the longevity of composite resin and glass-ionomer restorations in AI patients are shorter than in controls, but prosthetic crown therapy has longer longevity than composite resin and glass-ionomer restorations in AI patients, and the outcomes are better for hypoplastic AI. 16 Another frequent treatment option was steel crowns in primary and permanent molars and restorations with glass ionomer in permanent molars.Plastic forms, amalgam restorations, porcelain crowns and zirconium crowns were other types of restorations occasionally used. 17Difficulties in adhesion can hinder the union of the restorative material to the tooth; 3,7 additionally, the loss of occlusal dimension and skeletal open bite could increase the complexity of treatment. 6Thus, adhesive restorations appear to be the most suitable because they allow an adequate bonding to the enamel without the need for retentive preparations, 24 and adhesive treatment in two-stage interventions during the mixed dentition period until permanent dentition and growth of hard and soft tissues, could provide acceptable aesthetics and reduce pain caused by teeth sensitivity. 7he present critical review shows there are several treatment strategies for AI and the introduction of new restorative materials such as glass ionomer cements, resin modified glass ionomer cements, resin compounds modified with polyacids, resin compounds and indirect adhesives, or porcelain or zirconia inlays or crowns for AI patients, has been quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated in recent decades.However, clinical performance evaluation is still based on case reports and there is insufficient support to provide high quality evidence to establish guidelines for clinical practice.Nonetheless, one of the conclusions of the articles analyzed in this review is that all restorations cause inflammation and plaque accumulation in AI patients.However, the conclusions of this scoping review are similar to those of Dashash's systematic review, 17 because the samples were not representative of the population of children with AI affiliated to a dental office and the included studies were mainly case reports and descriptive studies, prone to risk of bias, and as a consequence, the validity of the included studies is limited.Therefore, questions related to longevity of restorations and treatment complications in children with AI with mixed dentition remain unanswered.
Further studies are necessary to obtain larger sample sizes, and also to overcome the limited level of evidence and degrees of recommendation. 17In this regard, future research should consider the performance of high quality randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of different restorative materials by means of data analysis before and following the interventions.This prospective design allows the researcher to infer causal associations between interventions and outcomes providing the highest evidence regarding different therapies. 25

CONCLUSION.
As reported in the literature analyzed for this critical review, the temporary restorative treatment in children and adolescents with amelogenesis imperfecta that demonstrated better long-term results in permanent teeth are direct and indirect composite resins.
accompanies the patient during his adolescence until the complete formation of hard and soft tissues.Assessment of Restorative Treatment To evaluate the results of restorative Population of 8 patients.Direct restorations, such as composite resin crowns, Analytical 2b C of Patients with Amelogenesis treatment in the mixed dentition of patients (8-18 years) showed a high failure considered "provisional observational Imperfecta (Chiung-Fen Chen, Eduardo with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) and to restorations".After the restorative treatment the Bresdani, Jan Ching Chun Hu., 2013) determine the post-rehabilitation oral health sensitivity decreased and the aesthetics were status.acceptable.Interventions for the restorative care of To compare the success rates of different Children and adolescents with We did not find randomized controlled trials of Systematic 1a A amelogenesis imperfecta in children restorative materials and techniques used for AI, 6 to 25 years of age, referred restorative treatments for children and adolescents review and adolescents.(Dashash M, Yeung the restoration of anterior and posterior teeth for oral rehabilitation with AI, so there is no evidence of the best restoration.CA, Jamous I, Blinkhorn A Dashash., with AI in terms of patient satisfaction Well-defined randomized controlled trials involving 2013) (aesthetics and sensitivity) and function.children and adolescents should be performed and focus on the type and severity of the disorder to determine the best intervention for restoring AI-affected teeth.Outcome of restorative treatment The aim of this paper is to compare oral health 82 patients (42 girls and 40 boys) The clinical significance of this study demonstrates Retrospective 3b B in young patients with amelogenesis and longevity of dental restorations in a group aged 6-25 years with AI: the need for long-term restorative solutions for cross-sectional imperfecta.A cross-sectional, of young patients with AI compared to a Hypomineralización and AI patients.It also shows the importance of establishing study retrospective study (G.Pousette control group.hypomaturation an early permanent therapy plan for these patients Lundgren, G. Dahllo, 2014) to avoid frequent dental visits

Cisneros C, Gómez M, Vaca M, Abreu LG, Méndez P & Otero L.
Temporary restorative treatment in children and adolescents with amelogenesis imperfecta: Scoping review.

Table 1 .
Unit of analysis.
Amelogenesis Imperfecta: A Conservative The objective of this work is to present a case A 14-year-old male patient.The application of a minimally invasive method in a

Gómez M, Vaca M, Abreu LG, Méndez P & Otero L.
Further studies should be conducted among different age groups including different ethnic groups and types of AI to Temporary restorative treatment in children and adolescents with amelogenesis imperfecta: Scoping review.J Oral Res 2017; 6(12):324-330.doi:10.17126/joralres.2017.091evaluate aesthetics, longevity and function of materials employed for AI treatment.Since adhesion and aesthetics are difficulties involved in the dental treatment of any individual presenting enamel alterations, promising dental materials already tested in normal teeth should be evaluated in clinical trials involving AI patients. 17