Prenatal ultrasound and postmortem histologic evaluation of tooth germs: an observational, transversal study

Head & Face Medicine

Paula Vaz⁶  Ana Cristina Braga²  Francisco Valente⁵  Rosete Nogueira⁴  António Felino³  Mariana Seabra¹ 

[1] Portuguese Catholic University (UCP), Viseu, Portugal;Department of Production and Systems Engineering, and researcher in Algoritmi Centre University of Minho, Braga, Portugal;Department of Oral Surgery of FMDUP, Porto, Portugal;ICVS/3B’s - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga, Guimarães, Portugal;Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Hospital of Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho (CHVNG/E), Porto, Portugal;Department of Medical and Orofacial Genetics of FMDUP, Porto, Portugal

关键词: Histology;    Diagnosis;    Prenatal;    Ultrasound;    Tooth buds;    Tooth germ;   

Others  :  1219632
DOI  :  10.1186/s13005-015-0075-8

 received in 2014-06-28, accepted in 2015-04-27,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

Hypodontia is the most frequent developmental anomaly of the orofacial complex, and its detection in prenatal ultrasound may indicate the presence of congenital malformations, genetic syndromes and chromosomal abnormalities.

To date, only a few studies have evaluated the histological relationship of human tooth germs identified by two-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography. In order to analyze whether two-dimensional ultrasonography of tooth germs may be successfully used for identifying genetic syndromes, prenatal ultrasound images of fetal tooth germs obtained from a Portuguese population sample were compared with histological images obtained from fetal autopsies.

Methods

Observational, descriptive, transversal study. The study protocol followed the ethical principles outlined by the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Dental Medicine, University of Porto (FMDUP, Porto, Portugal) and of the Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho (CHVNG/EPE, Porto, Portugal) as well as by the CGC Genetics Embryofetal Pathology Laboratory. Eighty-five fetuses examined by prenatal ultrasound screening from May 2011 to August 2012 had an indication for autopsy following spontaneous fetal death or medical termination of pregnancy. Of the 85 fetuses, 37 (43.5%) were randomly selected for tooth germ evaluation by routine histopathological analysis. Fetuses who were up to 30 weeks of gestation, and whose histological pieces were not representative of all maxillary tooth germs was excluded. Twenty four fetus between the 13^th and 30^th weeks of gestation fulfilled the parameters to autopsy.

Results

Twenty four fetuses were submitted to histological evaluation and were determined the exact number, morphology, and mineralization of their tooth germs. All tooth germs were identifiable with ultrasonography as early as the 13^th week of gestation. Of the fetuses autopsied, 41.7% had hypodontia (29.1% maxillary hypodontia and 20.9% mandibular hypodontia).

Conclusions

This results indicate that prenatal ultrasound is a reliable method for detecting of hypodontia an early gestational ages. Further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these results.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Seabra et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chhabra N, Goswami M, Chhabra A. Genetic basis of dental agenesis - molecular genetics patterning clinical dentistry. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19:112-119.
• [2]Matalova E, Fleischmannova J, Sharpe PT, Tucker AS. Tooth agenesis: from molecular genetics to molecular dentistry. J Dent Res. 2008; 87:617-623.
• [3]De Coster PJ, Marks LA, Martens LC, Huysseune A. Dental agenesis: genetic and clinical perspectives. J Oral Pathol Med. 2009; 38:1-17.
• [4]Ulm MR, Chalubinski K, Ulm C, Deutinger J, Plockinger B, Bernaschek G. Sonographic depiction of fetal tooth germs. Prenat Diagn. 1995; 15:368-372.
• [5]Ulm MR, Kratochwil A, Ulm B, Lee A, Bettelheim D, Bernaschek G. Three- dimensional ultrasonographic imaging of fetal tooth buds for characterization of facial clefts. Early Hum Dev. 1999; 55:67-75.
• [6]Townsend G, Bockmann M, Hughes T, Brook A. Genetic, environmental and epigenetic influences on variation in humantoothnumber, size and shape. Odontology. 2012; 100:1-9.
• [7]Cobourne MT, Sharpe PT. Tooth and jaw: molecular mechanisms of patterning in the first branchialarch. Arch Oral Biol. 2003; 48:1-14.
• [8]Jernvall J, Thesleff I. Reiterative signaling and patterning during mammalian tooth morphogenesis. Mech Dev. 2000; 92:19-29.
• [9]Tucker AS, Sharpe P. The cutting edge of mammalian development; how the embryo makes teeth. Nat Rev Genet. 2004; 5:499-508.
• [10]Tummers M, Thesleff I. The importance of signal pathway modulation in all aspects of tooth development. J Exp Zool B: Mol Dev Evol. 2009; 312:309-319.
• [11]Cobourne MT, Sharpe PT. Making up the numbers: The molecular control of mammalian dental formula. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2010; 21:314-324.
• [12]Kapadia H, Mues G, D'Souza R. Genes affecting tooth morphogenesis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007; 10:237-244.
• [13]Chai Y, Maxson RE. Recent advances in craniofacial morphogenesis. Dev Dyn. 2006; 235:2353-2375.
• [14]Désilets V, Oligny LL. Genetics Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecology Canada; Family Physicians Advisory Committee; Medico–Legal Committee of the SOGC.Fetal and perinatal autopsy in prenatally diagnosed fetal abnormalities with normal karyotype. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011; 33:1047-1057.
• [15]Ulm MR, Kratochwil A, Ulm B, Solar P, Aro G, Bettelheim D. Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of fetal tooth germs. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 12:240-243.
• [16]Arte S, Nieminen P. Hypodontia. [https://www.orpha.net/data/patho/GB/uk-hypodontia.pdf]
• [17]Bailleul-Forestier I, Molla M, Verloes A, Berdal A. The genetic basis of inherited anomalies of the teeth. Part 1: clinical and molecular aspects of non-syndromic dental disorders. Eur J Med Genet. 2008; 51:273-291.
• [18]Mitsiadis TA, Luder HU. Genetic basis for tooth malformations: from mice to men and back again. Clin Genet. 2011; 80:319-329.
• [19]Brook AH. Dental anomalies of number, form and size: their prevalence in British schoolchildren. J Int Assoc Dent Child. 1974; 5:37-53.
• [20]Magnusson TE. Hypodontia, hyperodontia, and double formation of primary teeth in Iceland. An epidemiological study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1984; 42:137-139.
• [21]Jones ML, Mourino AP, Bowden TA. Evaluation of occlusion, trauma, and dental anomalies in African-American children of metropolitan Headstartprograms. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1993; 18:51-54.
• [22]Whittington BR, Durward CS. Survey of anomalies in primary teeth and their correlation with the permanent dentition. N Z Dent J. 1996; 92:4-8.
• [23]Yonezu T, Hayashi Y, Sasaki J, Machida Y. Prevalence of congenital dental anomalies of the deciduous dentition in Japanese children. Bull Tokyo Dent Col. 1997; 38:27-32.
• [24]Carvalho JC, Vinker F, Declerck D. Malocclusion, dental injuries and dental anomalies in the primary dentition of Belgian children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1998; 8:137-141.
• [25]Altug-Atac AT, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131:510-514.
• [26]Kramer PF, Feldens CA, Ferreira SH, Spiguel MH, Feldens EG. Dental anomalies and associated factors in 2- to 5-year old Brazilian children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008; 18:434-440.
• [27]Esenlik E, Sayın MO, Atilla AO, Ozen T, Altun C, Basak F. Supernumerary teeth in a Turkish population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:848-852.
• [28]Kapdan A, Kustarci A, Buldur B, Arslan D, Kapdan A. Dental anomalies in the primary dentition of Turkish children. Eur J Dent. 2012; 6:178-183.
• [29]Polder BJ, Van't Hof MA, Van der Linden FP, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004; 32:217-226.