ArticleJournal of dental sciences2020
The difference in symmetry of the enamel defects in celiac disease versus non-celiac pediatric population.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relative risk of oral manifestations with celiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Importance of celiac disease oral manifestations in pediatric patients: A systematic review.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2025Article
- Celiac Disease-Related Enamel Defects: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Celiac disease - a pluripathological model in pediatric practice.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Beyond the Gut: A Systematic Review of Oral Manifestations in Celiac Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Dental Manifestations and Celiac Disease-An Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeDental enamel defects are related to celiac disease and the dentists are in a perfect situation to identify and report suspected cases. The aim was to evaluate the symmetry of enamel defects in a pediatric Portuguese population with celiac disease and compare it with healthy controls. MATERIALS AND
methodsa case-control study was performed in 80 patients with celiac disease and 80 healthy individuals aged 6-18 years old as controls. Data was collected by a questionnaire and clinical observation. Colour, type, and site of enamel defects were recorded and classified according to Aine criteria. Data analysis was performed, and any p-value <0.05 was considered significant.
resultsEnamel defects were found in 55% of patients with celiac disease and 27.5% in the control individuals (p < 0.001). Grade I of Aine's classification was the most found in both groups, but it was higher in the celiac disease group, not only in the permanent dentition, but also in both dentitions with statistically significant difference (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001 respectively). Grade II was found only in the celiac disease group. It was observed that enamel defects in celiac disease were symmetric and the most affected teeth were the first permanent molars (p = 0.003) and the permanent incisors (p = 0.001).
conclusionSymmetric dental enamel defects in population with celiac disease are more predominant than in general population. Therefore, individuals with enamel defects, especially those with symmetric lesions, should be well evaluated and the possibility of having celiac disease in the clinical history must be taken into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.