Pros and Cons of Amelogenesis Imperfecta in the GARBA IV Hemi-Mandible, Melka Kunture, Ethiopia

Background: Recently, Le Cabec et al. (2021) contested the identification of Zilberman et al. (2004), of Amelogenesis Imperfecta (AI) Type II/III in the Garba IVE Homo erectus child hemi-mandible and attributed the lack of contrast between enamel and dentin in this specimen to a unique form of diagenesis. Objectives: To assess the basis for their conclusions in view of the fact that the Le Cabec et al. (2021) study relates to a genetically and clinically distinct condition - Hypoplastic AI, and does not relate to the Type II/III AI syndrome th.at Zilberman et al. described. Method: The authors analyzed the Le Cabec et al. article and compared their findings with the radiological and clinical findings in Amelogenesis Imperfecta Type II/III. Results: Le Cabec et al. (2021) presented detailed scans and synchotron study that replicate and support the findings of Zilberman et al. (2004); in showing lack of differentiation between enamel and dentin - typical of Amelogenesis Imperfecta Type II/III condition - together with excellent preservation of enamel micromorphology and clearly defined pulp chambers and pulp canals. Moreover, chemical corrosion results in loss of tissue whereas there is no evidence of this in Garba IVE. Conclusion: The authors contend that the findings in Le Cabec et al. (2021) are characteristic features of Type II/III AI as initially diagnosed by Zilberman et al. (2004), and best account for the similarity seen in radio-opacity of enamel and dentin.