## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Citeria** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Data Record**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Dental Caries \\ **N** \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} Each sharp probe’s engagement on any \\ surface of the tooth was considered a \\ carious lesion. The dmft/DMFT index \\ was used according to the WHO \\ criteria (1979) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} D/d \\ (decayed) \\ \end{tabular} & M/m (missing) & F/f (filled) \\ \cline{2-8}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Accessory cusps, agenesis, \\ supernumerary, inclusion and/or \\ rotation were clinically evaluated \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **1** (bleeding) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Periodontal** & \begin{tabular}{c} Using a mouth mirror and periodontal \\ explorer, the Community Periodontal \\ Index (CPI) was applied to describe \\ the gingival health condition, scoring \\ as 0 (healthy) or 1 (bleeding) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Oral/perioral** & \begin{tabular}{c} Presence of nodules was evaluated by \\ palpation and examination of soft \\ tissues \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **normal** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **low** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Frenulum** & \begin{tabular}{c} Clinical examination and palpation \\ were performed to identify low \\ frenumium insertion \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **mal/** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **crossbsite/** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **open/** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **crowding** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **diastemas** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Occlusion** & \begin{tabular}{c} Molar relationship (according to \\ [PERSON]’s classification) or canine \\ relationship, crossbite, scissor bite, \\ open and deep bite, crowding and \\ diastemas were examined \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **mal/** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **crossbsite/** \\ **(r)** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **open/** \\ **(r)** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **crowding** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **diastemas** \\ **(r)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Enamel Defects** & \begin{tabular}{c} Using a mouth mirror with air drying \\ of the tooth surface, all alterations in \\ the enamel, presenting as MIH (malerincisisy hypomineralization), enamel \\ hypoplasia or opacities were recorded \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **O** (healthy) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Intraaoral examination chart of standardized protocol. Table 3 shows the number and the percentages of subjects with a particular manifestation versus control group: there were no significant differences between the two groups in dmft/DMFT (\(p\) = 0.057), malocclusion (\(p\) = 0.2), frenulum insertion (\(p\) = 0.2) or gingiva inflammation CPI (\(p\) = 0.4). The Community Periodontal Index (CPI) was used to describe the gingival health condition, scored as 0 (healthy) or 1 (bleeding). Bleeding was present in 17 NF1 children and 15 children of the control group, showing a no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of gingiva inflammation. Low frenulum insertion was present in 22 patients with NF1 and 17 subjects of the control group. Frenulum insertion was classified as low following the definition of [PERSON]: \"if the frenulum was unusually broad, and there was no apparent attached gingiva in the midline and the interdental papilla could be moved by stretching the frenulum\" [13].