A case of enamel renal syndrome from a novel genetic mutation, multidisciplinary management and long-term prognosis.

Abstract

The heterogeneous features of enamel renal syndrome (ERS) make diagnosis and treatment challenging. The main symptoms are disturbed amelogenesis and nephrocalcinosis. Bi-allelic likely pathogenic (LP) or pathogenic (P) variants in FAM20A have been associated with the syndrome since 2012. Affected patients often receive extensive dental treatment because of deviant orofacial morphology. However, knowledge about long-term prognosis and treatment guidelines are still lacking. The complex nature of ERS might endanger both dental and general health. The purpose of this article is to highlight the risks of overlooking the symptoms of the syndrome, and to discuss management strategies, surveillance and prognosis. We report the management of a case with suspected ERS after initial dental treatment elsewhere with no adjustment for the syndrome. Dental treatment was revised and followed for 8 years. Complementary medical examinations were conducted, and ERS was genetically confirmed, revealing homozygosity for a LP c.755_757del, p.(Phe252del) variant in FAM20A. The nephrological investigation revealed medullary calcium deposits, normal renal function and hypophosphatemia. Urine analysis revealed hypocitraturia and hypocalciuria. Accordingly, the patient now medicates with potassium citrate to decrease the risk of progressive renal stone formation. We herein describe a patient with confirmed ERS with an 8-year follow-up. Diagnostic delay until adulthood led to complicated dental treatment. The results of nephrological investigations are presented. The importance of dental and medical multidisciplinary management in syndromic disorders affecting the formation of the enamel is also exemplified. The dental prognosis after rehabilitation is likely affected by anatomical variations and patient cooperation. The prognosis for renal function seems to be good. However, lifelong surveillance of renal function is recommended. The ethics committee in Uppsala, Sweden, determined that ethical approval was not necessary in this case (2019-04835). Informed consent was obtained from the participant in writing and is documented in the medical records.