Periodontal Treatment Needs and Oral Ulceration in Children and Adolescents with Celiac Disease

Aim: To determine periodontal treatment needs and the incidence of oral ulceration among children and adolescents with celiac disease and to compare their findings with a healthy age and gender-matched control group.

Methods: A prospective study was conducted at King Hussein Medical Center on a total of 86 patients: 43 patients with celiac disease as the study group (comma removed) and43 healthy age and gender-matched participants as the control group. Both groups were questioned for a history of recurrent mouth ulcers (comma removed) and the frequency of tooth brushing. The dental examination for each patient in both groups included the following: Plaque index, gingival index (comma removed) and Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN). The oral mucosa was examined clinically for any lesion consistent with aphthous ulceration

Results: There were 26 females and 17 males in each group, with a mean age of 13.2 and 13.3 years respectively. Plaque scores were significantly higher among the study group (p<0.05) while the difference in the gingival scores was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Recurrent aphthous ulceration (RAS) was positive among 13 (30.23%) celiac patients compared to 9 (20.9%) among the control group. However, the result was not statistically significant (p>0.05). CPITN revealed no significant difference between the two groups although the mean index was higher among the celiac group. No one in either group scored 0, while the highest percentage in both groups scored 2. Shallow and deep pockets (scores of 3 and 4) were greater in celiac patients. Overall, the variation between the two groups was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Oral hygiene status seems worse in celiac patients, which indicates that oral health education programs may be beneficial for these children. Although the need for periodontal treatment and the frequency of RAS are higher in celiac patients, the statistical difference was not significant (p NS).

View Books: