ReviewCureus2026
Amelogenesis Imperfecta or Molar-Incisor Hypomineralisation: A Narrative Review and Diagnostic Framework for Differentiating a Genetic From an Environmental Enamel Defect in Children.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) and molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) are two developmental enamel defects of distinct etiologies that may present overlapping clinical features, particularly when AI manifests as hypocalcified or hypomature phenotypes. This overlap constitutes a well-recognized diagnostic challenge at all levels of dental education and has important implications for treatment planning. This narrative review aims to synthesize the available data on the clinical, radiographic, genetic, and epidemiological features that allow differentiation between AI and MIH in children and to propose a stepwise diagnostic framework to support accurate and timely clinical decision-making. A narrative review was conducted using the PubMed database, supplemented by Google Scholar. The search covered the period from January 2000 to April 2026. Studies were included if they reported clinically relevant characteristics of AI and/or MIH with sufficient detail to support differential diagnosis. A total of 16 studies were selected for the narrative synthesis. Generalized, symmetric enamel abnormalities affecting both dentitions are suggestive of AI, whereas asymmetrical, localized opacities primarily involving permanent first molars and incisors are more indicative of MIH. Taurodontism was reported more frequently in AI than in MIH. Diagnostic confusion between the two conditions is well documented in surveys of general dental practitioners, dental students, and in image-based classification models. Family history, syndromic manifestations, and next-generation sequencing support the diagnosis of AI when it is clinically suspected. Differentiating between AI and MIH requires a structured clinical assessment integrating lesion distribution, symmetry, involvement of dentitions, family history, radiographic findings, syndromic screening, and targeted genetic testing. The proposed 10-step diagnostic framework aims to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and guide referral for specialized management in pediatric patients presenting with enamel defects of uncertain etiology.
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.