4.7 Review

Patterns of Dental Agenesis Highlight the Nature of the Causative Mutated Genes

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
卷 97, 期 12, 页码 1306-1316

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034518777460

关键词

systematic review; evidence-based dentistry; PAX9; EDA; MSX1; WNT10A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most common outcome of defective dental morphogenesis in human patients is dental agenesis (absence of teeth). This may affect either the primary or permanent dentition and can range from 5 or fewer missing teeth (hypodontia), 6 or more (oligodontia), to complete absence of teeth (anodontia). Both isolated and syndromic dental agenesis have been reported to be associated with a large number of mutated genes. The aim of this review was to analyze the dental phenotypes of syndromic and nonsyndromic dental agenesis linked to gene mutations. A systematic review of the literature focusing on genes (MSX1, PAX9, AXIN2, PITX2, WNT10A, NEMO, EDA, EDAR, EDARADD, GREMLIN2, LTBP3, LRP6, and SMOC2) known to be involved in dental agenesis was performed and included 101 articles. A meta-analysis was performed using the dental phenotypes of 522 patients. The total number and type of missing teeth were analyzed for each mutated gene. The percentages of missing teeth for each gene were compared to determine correlations between genotypes and phenotypes. Third molar agenesis was included in the clinical phenotype assessment. The findings show that isolated dental agenesis exists as part of a spectrum of syndromes for all the identified genes except PAX9 and that the pattern of dental agenesis can be useful in clinical diagnosis to identify (or narrow) the causative gene mutations. While third molar agenesis was the most frequent type of dental agenesis, affecting 70% of patients, it was described in only 30% of patients with EDA gene mutations. This study shows that the pattern of dental agenesis gives information about the mutated gene and could guide molecular diagnosis for geneticists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据