Table 2 Data abstracted from studies regarding developmental defects of enamel in People with Cystic Fibrosis
Author | DDE Status | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
Jagels&Sweeney 1976 | Case 5% Control 1% | There is no significant difference in the percentage of subjects with DDE between the case and control groups. |
Primosch 1980 | Case 33% Control 13–15% | There was a higher incidence of DDE in the case group when compared to the control group. |
Narang 2003 | Case 10% (primary teeth) 41% (permanent teeth) Control 11% (primary teeth) 21% (permanent teeth) | Higher % of opacities in incisor and molar teeth in the case group compared to the control group. |
Azevedo 2006 | Case 39% (demarcated opacity) 15% (diffuse opacity) 3% (hypoplasia) Control 11% (demarcated opacity) 17% (diffuse opacity) 2% (hypoplasia) | Higher prevalence of demarcated and hypoplastic DDE in the case group compared to the control group. |
Ferrazzano 2009 | Case 55.6% Control 22% | A statistically significant higher prevalence of DDE in the case group. |
Ferrazzano 2012 | Case 33% (primary teeth) 56% (permanent teeth) Control 20% (primary teeth) 23% (permanent teeth) | There is a higher prevalence of DDE in the case group. |
Peker 2014 | Case 83.3% (mild) 16.7% (moderate) 0% (severe) Control 100% (mild) 0% (moderate) 0% (severe) | Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group. |
Collard 2016 | Case 15% | A similar proportion of enamel defects in the case group when compared to the national Welsh average. |
Abu-Zahra 2019 | Case 50% (permanent teeth) 60% (first permanent molars and Incisors) | Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group compared to national averages. |
Pawlaczyk-Kamieńska 2019 | Case 54.55% Control 22.73% | Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group. |