This article isThis article 10.1111/jop.12622 doi: differences to lead between the of thisversion citethisarticle and asVersion Record.Please copyediting, paginationbeen throughthe andproofreadingtypesetting, process,may which This article acceptedhas been for publication andundergon +46 Mobile: [email protected] SE 34, väg Gustafs Carl University, Malmö Chrcanovic Ramos Bruno author: * Corresponding [email protected] Brazil. Horizonte, Belo Gerais, 4 rahimi Portsmouth of University Sciences, Biomedical and ofPharmacy School 3 [email protected] 2 [email protected]; 1 Gomez Santiago Ricardo Rahimi Siavash Peter A.Brennan Chrcanovic Ramos Bruno a fibrosarcoma: andameloblastic fibroma Ameloblastic Review Article Type:
Department of of Department eatet f rl ugr ad ahlg, col o School Pathology, and Surgery Oral of Department Department of of Department Accepted Sweden. Article Malmö, University, Malmö Odontology, of Faculty Prosthodontics, of Department [email protected] protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. 3
Histopathology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK. Portsmouth, Hospital, QueenAlexandra Histopathology, 2
rl n Maxillofacial and Oral
4
1*
DS Mc PhD MSc, DDS, ,
. Surgery, Surgery,
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Odontology, of Faculty Prosthodontics, of Department 725 - 214
541 21, Malmö, Sweden. [email protected]; [email protected]; Sweden. Malmö, 21,
545 Fax: +46 406658503 +46 545 Fax: ue Aeada optl Prsot, UK Portsmouth, Hospital, Alexandra Queen
f Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Minas de Federal Universidade Dentistry, f systematic review systematic
e fullpeer review buthasnot
. with a similar structure to the AF, but composed of a benign epithelium and a malignant malignant a and isThis article epithelium benign a of composed but AF, the to structure similar a Acceptedwith neoplasm a is (AFS) fibrosarcoma ameloblastic The tissues. hard dental no with but organ, enamel den the resembling INTRODUCTION rate fibroma Ameloblastic KEYWORDS AFS. into change malignant Conclusions. lesion. the related to 0.295; (OR recur to probability lower 70.5% a had resection segmental by treated AFS types. lesion the Articleresections by treated often more were patients older and lesions Larger 50%). AF, an ( after (occurring primary 35%), lesions, (all AFS (12.5%), AF peripheral of occurrence expansion, the to regard with significantly differed AFS and AF central AF (279 publications 244 Results. having enough publications included criteria Eligibility July/2017. in undertaken was search electronic An Methods. (AFS) fibrosarcomas ameloblastic published data available the integrate To Purpose. ABSTRACT
p h aeolsi fboa A) s tumo a is (AF) fibroma ameloblastic The 009 ta mria rscin 2.% f h AFS the of 21.3% resection. marginal than =0.049)
for central for otcl oe efrto and perforation bone cortical
Very long follow long Very clinical, radiological and and clinical, radiological protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
a ppla ih pteil tad ad et smlr to similar nests and strands epithelial with papilla tal
; A ameloblastic fibrosarcoma ameloblastic F.
Segmental resection resulted in the lowest rate of recurrence for most of of most for recurrence of rate lowest the in resulted resection Segmental Segmental resection is the most recommended therapy for AFS. therapyfor most recommended isthe resection Segmental - up is recommended for AF lesions, due to the risk of recurrence and and recurrence of risk the to due lesions, AF for recommended is up into
a comprehensive analysis of their of analysis comprehensive a histological information to confirm a defini confirm a to histological information
tumours
lesion size. size. lesion , 10 peripheral AF, 103 AFS) wereincluded. AFS) AF, 103 peripheral , 10 ; odontogenic tumors; clinical features; recurrence recurrence features; clinical tumors; odontogenic u cmoe o ootgnc ec odontogenic of composed r o date to Rec rec rates urrence e novo de
- ains id u t comp to due died patients on on mlbatc fibroma ameloblastic ) AFS (28.8%), secondary AFS AFS secondary (28.8%), AFS )
clinical/radiologic features. clinical/radiologic
patients’ mean age, age, mean patients’ were the dental lamina and and lamina dental the cnrl F (19.2%), AF central : te diagnosis. te tomesenchyme tomesenchyme s (AF) and and (AF) s
lications lications surgical surgical
bone bone
This article isThis article being as authors other by identified lesions also were subject the on reviews relevant oral and specialist and strategies: thesearch wereused in terms The following following the in Search strategies AND METHODS MATERIALS recurrence. of features, radiologic and theirclinical of analysis comparative comprehensive updated an into lesions these on literature the in published data available the integrate to was study p treatment refine and accuracy diagnostic improve can An sarcoma figures mitotic of number high to moderate component mesenchymal
Accepted Article epidemiological study of of study epidemiological This study followed the PRISMA Statement guidelines guidelines Statement the PRISMA followed This study tumo odontogenic of 2% about only represents AF Google Scholar was also checked. A ma A checked. also was Scholar Google ( 2017 July in updated last and undertaken was restrictions time without search electronic An ameloblastic fibroma) ameloblastic (1) .
AFS is considered considered AFS is protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct, J Direct, Science Science, of Web PubMed/Medline, databases:
lan journals
s -
o piie lncl outcome clinical optimize to yial comprising typically these
to be to be OR (ameloblastic fibrosarcoma) OR fibrosarcoma) (ameloblastic OR
, a performed. was
allow rare rare the malignant counterpart ofAF. counterpart malignant the ing tumours checked
pathologists and surgeons to make informed decisions decisions informed make to surgeons and pathologists - F r AFS or AF nual search of of search nual
i.e. the mesodermal component shows features of of features shows component mesodermal the i.e.
is
mark
h rfrne it f dniid tde ad the and studies identified of list reference The for possible additional studies. studies. additional possible for important
ed cellularity, nuclear pleomorphism and a a and pleomorphism nuclear cellularity, ed , even not having the term “ameloblastic “ameloblastic term the having not even , s
u (3 rs rs
- (6) all 5)
(2) because because . . related
Therefore , and AFS is considered to be rare. rare. be to considered is AFS and , (ameloblastic
it oral pathology, maxillofacial maxillofacial pathology, oral provides information that that information provides , the aim of the present present the of aim the ,
as well as the frequency the frequency well as as
sarcoma) - Stage, and LILACS. LILACS. and Stage, Publications with with Publications
This article isThis article of the diagnosis confirm authors the of one by assessed thoroughly were and clinical The authors. the publications the by between reported lesions the of description histological the as well as aspects, radiological discussion by solved were Disagreements obtained. wa report full the decision, clear a make to abstract and title the in data insufficient were there which for or criteria, inclusion the meet to appearing studies For authors. the by independently Study selection were excluded. ( tissue hard presented non from differently behave may they as of parts containing tumors Hybrid information. histological and radiological clinical, enough with cases any reported had categories studies, proliferation/apoptosis cell studies, studies, cytological studies, histopathological histomorphometric studies, expression genetic studies, studies, radiological immunohistochemical were criteria Exclusion included. case studies, cohort trials, (1) He World the of criteria and definitions contain Inclusion author fibroma
Accepted Article ( at pae i 2017 in updated last (RSG) (RSG) “ Eligibility criteria included publications reporting cases of of cases reporting publications included criteria Eligibility The titles and abstracts of all r all of abstracts and titles The enough clinical, radiological and histological information to confirm the diagnosis. diagnosis. the confirm to information histological and radiological clinical, enough
and Exclusion Criteria Exclusion and r “ or of the present thestudy. of present mlbatc fibrosarcoma ameloblastic protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
AF orAFS mlbatc irdnioacm o aeolsi fibro ameloblastic or fibrodentinosarcoma ameloblastic ) - wr ue t dans h lesions. the diagnose to used were , control studies, cross studies, control
in vitro in .
any of these lesions these of any
eports identified through the electronic searches were read read were searches electronic the through identified eports
alth Classification of Tumors Tumors of Classification alth studies, and review papers, unless any of these publication publication these of any unless papers, review and studies, ” n h tte f h article, the of title the in - hybrid hybrid - sectional studies, case series, and case reports case and series, case studies, sectional (RSG lesions
were not were not considered for this stu this for considered not were not were ) a exp an , . mlbatc sarcomato Ameloblastic
Randomized and controlled clinical clinical controlled and Randomized r i oa pathology oral in ert AF or AFS or AF
– ee lo re also were
Head and Neck Tumors book book Tumors Neck and Head . The studies needed to to needed studies The . - - evaluated by an an by evaluated odontosarcoma) odontosarcoma) us lesions that that lesions us , in order to to order in ,
were The dy, dy, s This article isThis article were groups independent two for tests performed The homoscedasticity. evaluated Accepted test Levene’s Kolmogorov Analyses performed. was missing data possible for authors with Contact publications. the in reported diameter largest the to according determined were they whether collected. also were death patient’s the and metastases, of occurrence the recurrences, of number the chemotherapy, radiotherapy, with resection resection, partial enucleation, cl of presence tumor, the to adjacent region osseous of expansion growth, lesion’s to displacement due resorption tooth root tooth and/or tooth), entire the encompassing unerupted or lesion the by encompassed toot (the tooth a with lesion the of association exams, radiological the in visible radiopacities Article of presence (unilocular/multilocular), appearance radiological locularity bone, cortical of perforation lesions), peripheral (for bone cortical subjacent of erosion of presence size, lesion period, the recurrence recurrence, in region), lesions molars/retromolar posterior: [c] region; premolar [b] region; incisors/canine the in lesions anterior: (maxilla location lesion treatment, to follow race, and age sex, patient’s patients, of number publication, of year available: when form, standard a on extracted then were data following the were disagreements Any forms. Data extraction The review authors independently extracted data using specially designed data extraction extraction data designed specially using data extracted independently authors review The The mean, standard deviation (SD), and percentages were presented a presented were percentages and (SD), deviation standard mean, The
– Smirnov test was performed to evaluate the normal distribution of the variables, and and variables, the of distribution normal the evaluate to performed was test Smirnov protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
e novo de inical symptoms, and treatment performed (excision, curettage, fulguration, fulguration, curettage, (excision, performed treatment and symptoms, inical
ein o ocre after occurred or lesions re solved by discussion. For each of the identifi the of each For discussion. by solved
AFS were defined as ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ depending on on depending ‘secondary’ or ‘primary’ as defined were AFS mnil) atro/otro lcto (he ctgre: [a] categories: (three location anterior/posterior /mandible), otniy. o sroaos lesions sarcomatous For continuity). h can either be erupted with the entire root(s) root(s) entire the with erupted be either can h - up period, duration of the lesion previously previously lesion the of duration period, up
an
AF , respectively. The lesion size was was size lesion The respectively. , s descriptive statistics. statistics. descriptive s ed studies included, included, studies ed , information on on information ,
the This article isThis article Accepted25 and lesions primary were 71 AFS, 103 the Of AFS. 103 and AF peripheral 10 AF, central 279 all of features clinical and demographic presents th of Description of diagnosis definite a confirm to information histological and radiological clinical, enough have not did studies inclu the meet not did they because 105 of yielded hand Additional cases. clinical resulted the Of question. focus the to related articles those for abstracts the screened independently reviewers of number A databases. main in resulted Article search Literature RESULTS IL,USA). Inc.,Chicago, (SPSS software 23 version (SPSS) Sciences Social the for Package Statistical the using analyzed statistically were considered was significance statistical of degree The interval). confidence (95% ratio odds in variables, several for calculated was recurrence of probability The table. contingency 2x2 a in events of count expected the on depending variables, categorical for used were tests exact Fisher’s t Student’s The study selection process is summarized in Figure 1. The search strategy in the databases databases the in strategy search The 1. Figure in summarized is process selection study The 244 28
additional papers. papers. additional 2,299 -
et r Mann or test publications were included in the present review (see Supplemental Appendix). Table 1 Table Appendix). Supplemental (see review present the in included were publications AF 1,589 . Thus, a total of total of a . Thus, protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
e Studies and Analyses and e Studies
papers. Search in Google Scholar resulted in 46 eligible papers not found in the five five the in found not papers eligible 46 in resulted Scholar Google in Search papers.
studies, - hte ts, d test, Whitney 1,268 The full The - 756 244 searching of journals and of the reference lists of selected studies studies selected of lists reference the of and journals of searching
were excluded for not being related to the topic or not p not or topic the to related being not for excluded were
articles were cited in more than one database (duplicates). The The (duplicates). database one than more in cited were articles publications were included in the review. in included were publications
- text reports of the remaining 349 articles led to the exclusion exclusion the to led articles 349 remaining the of reports text
sion criteria (see Supplemental Appendix). Appendix). Supplemental (see criteria sion pnig n h nraiy Pasns chi Pearson’s normality. the on epending secondary lesions occurring after the treatment of an an of treatment the after occurring lesions secondary
p < The excluded excluded The 0.05. All data data All 0.05. - squared or or squared resenting resenting This article isThis article Accepted by oftentreated were more patients andolder lesions ( AFS an of occurrence the and AF an after time (mean±SD first months 50.1±55.6 the for recurred AF Central 2). (Table types lesion the of most for recurrence of rate lowest the in resulted resection Segmental recurrences. 8 presented case one and times, 4 case recurred. AF peripheral recurred, AF central of 19% About AF. followed were cases the of (63/77) 81.8% and (49/77) 63.6% AFS, to regard With respectively. years, 5 and followed were cases AF central the of (141/180) AF central the of 78.3% and available) AF for than greater was AFS of size lesion than AFS than symptoms lesions sarcomatous the in Article 90% and AF central presented AFS). for the of 80% 4 Almost figure AF; central for 3 (figure region anterior the the in to and comparison maxilla, in the region posterior to comparison in mandible the in prevalent more were lesions The 3). s the on prevalence highest the had AFS life. of decades two first the on prevalence high a with age, to according AF central the of distribution the shows 2 Figure pre cases. inlesion 7 AF. aet n e. h ma ae f h ptet ws ihr n F ta i cnrl F ( AF central in than AFS in higher was patients the of age mean The men. in valent There was not enough information in order to define whether an AFS was primary or secondary secondary or primary was AFS an whether define to order in information enough not was There central Central AF and AFS were more prevalent in men than in women, and peripheral AF more AF peripheral and women, in than men in prevalent more were AFS and AF Central AFS was AFS - up with
AF. The percentage of root resorption was not different between AF and AFS. The mean mean The AFS. and AF between different not was resorption root of percentage The AF. protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. to 3 and 5 years, respectively. years, 5 3and to
hs lncl sign clinical this
far more often submitted to surgical resections, either marginal of segmental, than than segmental, of marginal either resections, surgical to submitted often more far centra ( p <0.001) 37 l
AF lesions showed bone expansion, and virtually all sarcomatous lesions lesions sarcomatous all virtually and expansion, bone showed lesions AF cases of centr of cases ,
min . AFS ( p - max, 6 max, <0.001)
more often presented a multilocular radiological appearance appearance radiological multilocular a presented often more secondary AFS) was 55.1±54.7 (min 55.1±54.7 was AFS) secondary - al AF recurred only once, three cases recurred twice, one one twice, recurred cases three once, only recurred AF al versus 228; n=38). The mean±SD time between the treatment of of treatment the between time mean±SD The n=38). 228; Cria bn proain a peet n 26 o the of 22.6% in present was perforation bone Cortical . ( p <0.001)
5 o te AFS the of 35% ( p . <0.001)
61.7% (111 out of 180 cases with information information with cases 180 of out (111 61.7% surgical rese surgical .
econd and third decades of life (Figure (Figure life of decades third and econd Central ctions ( p =0.004)
AF less often often less AF
for central AF (Table 3). (Table AF central for - max, 3 max, . One case (12.5%) of of (12.5%) case One . - 168; n=19). Larger Larger n=19). 168; caus - up up to 3 to up up ed clinical clinical ed p <0.001). <0.001).
This article isThis article resection. follow mean higher significant follow in difference significant statistically a have not did treatments different to submitted Patients AFS. toaf significantly seem didnot factors 0.295; Ratio (Odds recur to probability lower 70.5% a had resection segmental by treated AFS factors. different to according AFS for rate effect significant statistically a have to showed significance. statistically present not did the difference though even 28.8%), vs. (50% AFS primary than rate recurrence higher a presented AFS Secondary patient, the p of age mean AFS: secondary and primary between different significant statistically chemotherap (min 22.2±39.6 months of mean±SD a after time first the for recurred AFS 2). (Table therapies adjunctive the to submitted not patients those than AFS for rates recurrence higher had radiotherapy and chemo infor no was there recurrences), 2 with 1 recurrence, 1 ( recurrences 8 and 6 with each patient 1 and died), (1 recurrences (3 presented subjects 7 died), (1 recurrences present not did 51 which of secondary), was established was AFS an when numbe the about information was There recurrences. some after treatment further refused patients these of Three cases). 76 for available resence of dislocated/unerupted teeth due to the lesion growth, and the occurrence of metastases. metastases. of occurrence the and growth, lesion the to due teeth dislocated/unerupted of resence Accepted Article died) - up time for AF. With regard to regard With AF. for time up 16 Table 6 Table Tabl 9 ,
AFS patients patients AFS e 4 e niiul 2 eurne ( de) 3 ains rcrecs 2 id, ptet 4 patients 2 died), (2 recurrences 3 patients 3 died), (7 recurrences 2 individuals - y and radiotherapy, respectively, as adjunctive therapy. Three variables were were variables Three therapy. adjunctive as respectively, radiotherapy, and y a, 2 max, protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
shows the shows shows the recurrence rate for central AF according to different factors. No factor factor No factors. different to according AF central for rate recurrence the shows - 16 ; =4. ie n 2 ptet (u o 7) with 73) of (out patients 20 and Nine n=24). 8; died time of follow of time – from
- it does not consider the number of recurrences of AF, in case the AFS AFS the case in AF, of recurrences of number the consider not does it up time than those patients submitted to marginal and segmental segmental and marginal to submitted patients those than time up
opiain rltd o h lso (21.1% lesion the to related complications fect the recurrence rate. therecurrence fect
AFS, patients submitted to curettage presented a statistically statistically a presented curettage to submitted patients AFS, p - r of recurrences for 76 cases (considering recurrences for for recurrences (considering cases 76 for recurrences of r = up for different methods of treatment for central AF and and AF central for treatment of methods different for up .4) hn hn rae b mria rscin Other resection. marginal by treated when than 0.049)
on the recurrence rate. Table 5 Table rate. recurrence the on
mation about death. death. about mation
both died). died).
AFS were submitted to to submitted were AFS
Patients submitted to submitted Patients shows the recurrence recurrence the shows For 2 patients (1 with with (1 patients 2 For -
information was was information 1 recurren 1 ce
This article isThis article ordinary than documented be to likely more are AF of cases transformed malignantly and recurred recur tumor tumo the when and patients were of results the by observed trend The needed. AF, tumors odontogenic keratocystic in observed that AFS lesions. the secondary AF. for surgery in removed were teeth many that fact the by explained be may This AFS. secondary by than AFS primary by teeth displaced/retained of with associated be may transformation malignant AF to compared when alterations genetic of diversity and number increased (7) 50 than more that fact the As rate and recurrence symptoms, clinical of presence questioned. the diagnosis have may that cases included suggest but AFS, or AF not were them of all that say to not is This criteria. inclusion the meet not did they DISCUSSION
,
Accepted Article AFS with patients some believe that AF is more is AF that believe some t a hpteie that hypothesized was it used s AFS more more AFS to regard with significantly differed AFS and AF exc were publications many AFS and AF on review literature present the In Simple enucleation is related to a considerable recurrence rate for AF, for rate recurrence considerable a to related is enucleation Simple
that the authors authors the that
for AF in young patients, and surgical resections were more often considered in older older in considered often more were resections surgical and patients, young in AF for s
oe hn once than more protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. often presented a presented often s.
presented at a higher mean age in compared in age mean higher a at presented
% of reported cases had histologic documentation of AF in the same site same the in AF of documentation histologic had cases reported of % perhaps perhaps u r is r cortical bone perforation, bone cortical 1, 12) (11, hr i a is there aggressive than aggressive large s a multilocular radiolucency multilocular a s ed to need . . More radical surgery should should surgery radical More . ocrig h rt o scnay AFS secondary of rate the Concerning
stepwise malignant transformation transformation malignant stepwise
etr ecie the describe better our
Therefore, fewer teeth teeth fewer Therefore, review suggest that more conservative approaches approaches conservative more that suggest review previously (10) chromosomal instability. chromosomal .
As about about As
lesion mean size, mean mean size, mean lesion bone expansion expansion bone
thought and more radical more and thought
ir 25% than than
findings and that many reviews reviews many that and findings to
also be considered be also of AFS develop AFS of central those those are displaced or or displaced are daet o h tumo the to adjacent
There were more cases cases more were There with AF, with
AF (52.3% vs. 39.4%). 39.4%). vs. (52.3% AF
(8) observed here, the the here, observed age of the patients, patients, the of age a finding a (9) .
As AFS AFS As , luded because because luded in a recurrent recurrent a in t this stepwise stepwise this ogether with with ogether treatment treatment retained in in retained
when the the when similar to similar a an has u is is r ,
This article isThis article Accepted case series. orsmall reports case isolated as published described were cases be would it what follow short a considered define to hard is it However, rate. recurrence actual the of underestimation Second records. r retrospective were studies included all treatment most recommended of chance are ra recurrence higher a epithelial recur several noted that al. et Takeda by described case a note to interesting is It sign. prognostic good a is component epithelial dominant a whether confirm to necessary Articleare studies Further factor. limiting important tumo for used been has AFS recurrent some deformity cosmetic and neurologic could diagnosis earlier a with patients any of diagnosis Hence, months. 55.1 was AFS an of occurrence the and AF an of treatment the 10 reported been has and diagnosis, original the after years many occur can AF of transformation Malignant in found malignant transformation reports case of form the in cases more commonly used in aggressive cases. cases. aggressive in used commonly more Patients with AFS treated with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy as adjunctive therapy adjunctive as radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy with treated AFS with Patients the However, The results of of results The
component remained. remained. component recur (8, 13, 14) 13, (8, protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. rence ly tumours tumours , many of the of many ,
when treated by marginal resection. resection. marginal by treated when our te than than te vast , 12 , rences with increased malignancy, deposition of dentinoid material, but the but material, dentinoid of deposition malignancy, increased with rences reduce the risk of massive tumour extension resulting in devastating devastating in resulting extension tumour massive of risk the reduce -
within the AF group should undergo undergo should group AF the within up period to evaluate the r the evaluate to period up study have to be interpreted with caution because of its limitations. First, First, limitations. its of because caution with interpreted be to have study
(15) aoiy 7.% o cnrl F ae wr followed were cases AF central of (78.3%) majority those who did not have these treatments, although these modalities modalities these although treatments, these have not did who those
, or 14 years years 14 or , for AFS. for published cases had cases published The patient patient The our (14) (12)
rev
. . Therefore, it is possible that the rates of recurrence and and recurrence of rates the that possible is it Therefore, . The gradual disappearance of the epithelium component in in component epithelium the of disappearance gradual The eports, which inherently result inherently which eports, iew areoverestimate died by direct invas bydirect died (16) u AFS treated by segmental resection had a 70.5% lower lower 70.5% a had resection segmental by treated AFS r staging, but the few few the but staging,
after the initial diagnosis. The mean time between between time mean The diagnosis. initial the after
ecurrence of these lesions. Third lesions. these of ecurrence a short follow short a Therefore,
have d. ion.
long - up, which could have led to an to led have could which up, number of cases reported is an is reported cases of number
s egmental resect egmental -
term follow term in
errors - up up to 5 years. years. 5 to up up , with - up, lifelong. up, ly ion is still is ion ,
many incomplete incomplete
of the of (17) had the the An ,
This article isThis article REFERENCES for not or commercial, public, the in agency funding any from grant specific no received research This support Funding/grant declare. to ofinterest conflicts no There are conflictinginterests of Declaration U Malmö of librarians the thank to like would also We case. their about information provided who Nam, Woong e our us sent who Soulard Raoulin Dr. thank to like would We ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS intoAFS. transformation follow long Very CONCLUSIONS 3. 2. 1.
Accepted- Article profit profit sectors. litera the in reported cases 117 of review systematic updated an tumour: peripheral cell ghost and dentinogenic tumour odontogenic cystic calcifying Peripheral RS. Gomez BR, Chrcanovic 36 RM. Courtney DA, Kerr JA, Regezi Tumours Neck of Headand Classification El - mail, even though it was not possible not was it though even mail, - : 771 Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ (eds). (eds). PJ Slootweg T, Takata JR, Grandis JKC, Chan AK, Naggar ture. ture. niversity, who helped us to obtain some articles. obtain some to helped us who niversity, -
8.
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. Acta Odontol Scand Acta Odontol -
up is recommended for AF lesions, due to the risk of recurrence or malignant malignant or recurrence of risk the to due lesions, AF for recommended is up
Segmental resection is the most recommended therapy for AFS. for therapy most recommended isthe resection Segmental
2016; 2016; Odontogenic tumors: analysis of 706 cases. cases. 706 of analysis tumors: Odontogenic 74
: 591 :
. IARC Press: Lyon, 2017; 348. 2017; Lyon, Press: . IARC for him to send us his article, and article, his us send to him for - 7.
his article, Dr. Josep Castellví, who replied to to replied who Castellví, Josep Dr. article, his
World Health Organization Organization Health World
Dr. Jin Kim and Dr. Dr. and Kim Jin Dr. J Oral Surg Oral J
1978; 1978; - This article isThis article 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4.
Accepted Article
hcnvc R Gmz S Rcrec poaiiy o krtcsi o keratocystic for probability Recurrence RS. Gomez BR, Chrcanovic tumours. mixed odontogenic malignant and in benign al. et MG Diniz CC, Gomes CF, Galvão the malignant transformation. to genes certain of abnormalities molecular restricted fibroma: ameloblastic recurrent Will of study 70 case, a of report literature. fibrosarcoma: the of Ameloblastic review comprehensive and al. immunophenotype, et K Higgins N, Blanas J, Lai and Reviews Meta Systematic for Items Reporting Preferred al. et J Tetzlaff A, Liberati D, Moher literature. inthe reported cases Gomez BR, Chrcanovic 1425 Literature. the Reported in Cases of Review Systematic Updated Fibro Ameloblastic and Fibrodentinoma Ameloblastic RS. Gomez BR, Chrcanovic middle skull base with intradural extension. extension. withintradural base middle skull al. et RJ Skoracki EY, Hanna B, Guthikonda chemotherapy. GS. Hugh FP, Parker G, Goldstein behavior. biological and nature its reference to TJ. Li JM, Wang Y, Chen interrelationship. and nature their to with reference study clinicopathologic a lesions: related and fibroma Ameloblastic al. et Y Gao TJ, Li Y, Chen cases. of6427 analysis : 2007 as D Hna Y El EY, Hanna MD, iams - - 37. Analyses: -
12. protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
Cancer The PRISMA Statement. PRISMA Statement. The
J Craniomaxillofac Surg Craniomaxillofac J 1976; 1976; RS. Calcifying epithelial odontogenic tumor: An updated analysis of 339 339 of analysis updated An tumor: odontogenic epithelial Calcifying RS. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Radiol Oral Oral Pathol Med SurgOral Oral Ameloblastic fibroma: a review of published studies with special special with studies published of review a fibroma: Ameloblastic - 37 Naggar AK. Anaplastic ameloblastic fibrosarcoma arising from from arising fibrosarcoma ameloblastic Anaplastic AK. Naggar : 1673 J Craniomaxillofac Surg J Craniomaxillofac mlbatc acm: ahgnss and pathogenesis sarcoma: Ameloblastic - Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumour suppressor genes genes suppressor tumour in (LOH) heterozygosity of Loss 8. Ann Intern Med Intern Ann
Ameloblastic fibrosarcoma involving the anterior and anterior the involving fibrosarcoma Ameloblastic J Craniofac Surg J Craniofac
2017; 2017; Oral Oncol Oral J Oral Pathol Med J Pathol Oral 45 J Oral Pathol Med OralPathol J
: 244 2017; 2017;
2009; 2009;
2007; 2007;
- 2009; 2009; 51. 45 151
J Oral Maxillofac Surg Maxillofac Oral J : 1117 : 43 : 264 20 J Oral Maxillofac Surg Maxillofac Oral J : 960 : 2087
- 2005; 2005; - 23.
dontogenic tumors: An An tumors: dontogenic 9, W64. - 2012; 2012; 9.
- 90.
2007; 2007; 34 41
: 588
treatment with with treatment - : 389 Odontoma: An An Odontoma: 1 04 - 95. -
2017; 2017; 93. : 72
2012; 2012; - 5. 75
: This article isThis article 16 lesions. in affected substantially was sinus maxillary The cases. 3 in affected was mandible whole The (n=1). molars’ deciduous second and ‘first and ‘right (n=1), ramus’ (n=1), ‘left (n=1), mandible’ ‘angle/ramus’ (n=1), ‘left mandible’ (n=4), body’ ‘mandibular (n=1), mandible’ posterior and ‘anterior ‘mandible’ (n=1), maxilla’ ‘right (n=4), maxilla’ ‘posterior (n=1), maxilla’ ‘anterior (n=1), ‘maxilla’ the was location the (n=46), the lesions of rest the For ramus. and/or angle the reached that body mandibular or mandible anterior number the regions: indicates adjoining (*) both asterisk involving The cases premolar/molar. indicate anterior/premolar, lines the of bottom and top the at Numbers fibro ameloblastic central of (n=233) locations precise known the of distribution Topographical 4. Figure pa of Distribution 3. Figure ofcentral Distribution Figure 2. process. screening Study Figure 1. LEGENDS FIGURE 17. 16. 15.
Accepted n=102 agewereinformed, tients’ Article
253 fibr Ameloblastic fibroma. ameloblastic A. of transformation Suzuki R, Kaneko Y, Takeda fibroma. ameloblastic to relationship its of discussion with literature the of review and cases five of analysis DNA and al. et SB Kapadia DC, Parker S, Muller 2015; fibro ameloblastic of Bhuti A, Jose SA, Nagori mas. Cases involving multiple regions (or an entire quadrant) are indicated between arrows. arrows. between indicated are quadrant) entire an (or regions multiple involving Cases mas. - 63.
27
: 143 protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
- 6.
- mlbatc fibrosarcomas ameloblastic Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod Oral OralPathol Med SurgOral Oral dentinoma: A unique presentation. presentation. unique A dentinoma: a O et al. et O a ameloblastic fibromas ameloblastic
(n=8), ‘anterior mandible’ (n=2), ‘posterior mandible’ (n=16), (n=16), mandible’ ‘posterior (n=2), mandible’ ‘anterior (n=8), ).
Ameloblastic fibrosarcoma developing 8 years after resection resection after years 8 developing fibrosarcoma Ameloblastic Ameloblastic fibrosarcoma of the jaws. the of fibrosarcoma Ameloblastic icos rh Pto Aa Histopathol Anat Pathol A Arch Virchows
(n=279
according to age (for the cases which the the which cases the (for age to according osarcoma in the maxilla, malignant malignant maxilla, the in osarcoma )
according to age. to according Oa Mxloa Sr Md Pathol Med Surg Maxillofac Oral J
1995; 1995;
f ein fo the from lesions of
A clinicopathologic clinicopathologic A 79 : 469
1984; 1984; - 77.
404 :
This article isThis article Accepted bone. occipital the of part basilar and sinus, cavernous fossae, cranial anterior/middle base, skull space, orbital orbit, muscle, temporalis fossa, infratemporal bone, sphenoidal sinuses, sphenoetmoid cells, etmoidal posterior bone, ethmoidal nostril, cavity, nasal nasopharynx, epipharynx, muscles/plates, medial/lateral and fossa pterygoid palate, hard mouth, the of floor the to extended cases some and considerably, varied extension lesions’ the location, precise without cases 33 these Article of some For case. 1 in affected was maxilla whole The man ‘left (n=2), mandible’ mandible’ ‘right (n=10), ‘posterior (n=1), mandible’ ‘paramedian (n=1), ‘mandible’ (n=2), sinus’ maxillary ‘left (n=3), maxilla’ ‘right (n=3), maxilla’ ‘posterior (n=2), maxilla’ ‘left the rest was location the (n=33), lesions the For area. molars the reached anteriorly lesions these the of 10 reached and anteriorly area, premolars lesions these of 17 area, incisors/canine the reached anteriorly lesions the from or mandible lesions anterior of number the indicates (*) asterisk The premolar/molar. anterior/premolar, regions: adjoining both involving cases indicate lines the of bottom and top the at Numbers arrows. ameloblastic of (n=70) (or regions locations multiple involving precise Cases known fibrosarcomas. the of distribution Topographical 5. Figure protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
mandibular body that reached the angle and/or ramus (n=33): 6 of these these of 6 (n=33): ramus and/or angle the reached that body mandibular
dible’ (n=6), ‘left masticator space’ (n=1), ‘middle face’ (n=1). (n=1). face’ ‘middle (n=1), space’ masticator ‘left (n=6), dible’
an entire quadrant) are indicated between between indicated are quadrant) entire an part of the frontal bone, forehead, epidular epidular forehead, bone, frontal the of part
soft and soft
of the the of This article isThis article n(%) erosion, Bone n (%) perforation, C n(%) Symptomatic, n(%) expansion, Bone (%) Jaw, n (%) n Gender, (min Age n Variables Table
Accepted ortical bone Article Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown Mandible Maxilla Unknown Women Men p Women Men (years), mean±SD mean±SD (years),
- value value max)
1
. Demographic and Demographic .
e
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
h
clinical features of of features clinical 5.0±3.0 (2 5.0±3.0 15.0±22.3 (0 15.0±22.3 (0 12.0±18.9 AF - 7 (87.5) 1 (12.5) peripheral 8 (100) 4 (40) 6 (60) 7 (70) 3 n=10) 0.731 0 (0) n=7)
10 (30) 2 2 0 0 - - -
-
8; n=3) 8;
- - 54; 54;
ameloblastic fibromas fibromas ameloblastic
14.5±11.2 (0 14.5±11.2 (1 16.2±11.4 (0 15.2±11.3 60; n=114) 61; n=157) 61; n=279) AF 151 (83.3)190 (78.4)192 (79.2)217 (42.1)114 (57.9)157 44 (22.6) 38 (16.7) 53 (21.6) 57 (20.8) 0.162 - central 279 84 51 34 (77.4) 5 8
- - -
26.3±15.5 (3 26.3±15.5 (5 29.2±15.7 (3 27.7±15.6 (AF) (AF) 73 (93.6) 40 (55.6) 32 (44.4) 90 (97.8) 79 24 (23.3) 47 (46.1) 55 (53.9) n=102) 5 (6.4) 2 (2.2) n=47) n=54) 0.171 AFS 103 (76.7) 25 31 11 0 1 and ameloblastic fibrosarcomas ameloblastic and
- - -
78; 89; 89; p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.599 0.599 0.486
value value
f f d d d
f f f a
25.3±14.4 (3 25.3±14.4 28.6±18.0 (3 26.8±16.4 AFS 51 (91.1) 33 (57.9) 24 (42.1) 66 (98.5) 53 (74.6) 18 (25.4) 33 (47.1) 37 (52.9) - 5 (8.9) 1 (1.5) n=33) n=36) n=70) 0.552 primary primary 15 14 71 4 0 1
(AFS)
(5
- - -
78; 89; 89; described in the literature. inthe described b
AFS 33.0±19.7 (12 33.0±19.7 (16 31.8±10.0 (12 32.3±14.3 77; n=10) 48; n=15) 77; n=25) 23 (95.8) 22 (100) 7 (46.7) 8 (53.3) - 20 (80) 10 (40) 15 (60) 1 (4.2) secondary secondary 5 (20) 0.359 10 25 3 0 1 0 0 b
- - - p 0.215 0.215 0.104 0.029 0.181 0.181 0.460 0.436 0.436 0.590 0.
value value 538
d d d g g f f f
c
This article isThis article j n(%) therapy, Adjunctive (%) n Treatment, (%) n resorption, Tooth root n(%) unerupted, Tooth displacement/ (%) Locularity, n Accepted Article Chemotherapy Unknown Fulguration only Chemotherapy Segmental resection Marginal resection Enucleation Curettage Excision None Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown Multilocular Unilocular Unknown No Yes
Unknown No Yes
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
i
6 (85.7) 1 (14.3) 9 (100) 8 (100) 6 (75) 2 (25) 0 (0) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 ------
192 (79.0)192 (77.2)132 (80.4)152 (60.6)129 26 (10.7) 39 (22.8) 37 (19.6) 84 (39.4) 19 (7.8) 6 (2.5) 108 36 90 66 0 0 0 0 ------
64 (87.7) 65 (70.7) 16 (17.4) 38 (71.7) 15 (28.3) 23 (39.7) 35 (60.3) 34 (52.3) 31 (47.7) 9 (12.3) 2 (2.1) 1 (1.1) 4 (4.3) 3 (3.3) 1 (1.1) 30 11 50 45 38 0 - - -
0.414 0.414 0.002 0.066
f f f
50 (89.3) 46 (69.7) 12 (18.2) 31 (75.6) 10 (24.4) 13 (28.3) 33 (71.7) 6 (10.7) 25 (51) 24 (49) 2 (3.0) 1 (1.5) 3 (4.6) 2 (3.0) 15 30 25 22 5 0 0 - - -
13 (81.2) 10 (83.3) 3 (18.8) 7 (58.3) 5 (41.7) 2 (16.7) 9 (56.3) 7 (43.8) 19 (76) 4 (16) 1 (4) 1 (4) 13 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 - - -
0.317 0.317 0.208 0.001 0.716 0.716
g g g f
This article isThis article j i h g f e d c b a fibroma ameloblastic SD (min mean±SD size(cm), Lesion (min mean±SD Follow n (%) Recurrence, Death Metastasis
Resection with continuity defect continuity with Resection For sarcomas only sarcomas For Pearson chi Pearson Comparison of the mean age between men and women (Mann women men and age between theof mean Comparison Comparison between between Comparison Fisher’s exact test exact Fisher’s Comparison between between Comparison Accepted only lesions Peripheral Mann 7lesions in secondary or primary AFS an was whether define orderto in information enough not was There Article Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes Radiotherapy –
, n (%) , n(%)
tnad deviation standard Unknown No Yes
- - up time (months), up time(months), Whitney test Whitney
, n (%) (%) , n -
j
squared test squared - - protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved. m max)
ax) j
AFS AF
AFS , - central - primary and AFS primary and 34.3±41.1 (8 34.3±41.1 1.0±0.5 (0.5 1.0±0.5 - primary
7 (87.5) 1 (12.5)
and n=9) n=7) 2 ------
AFS
- - -
120; 120; 2.0;
a eolsi fibrosarcoma meloblastic - secondary 47.7±60.5 (1 47.7±60.5 4.8±4.7 (0.3 4.8±4.7 50.5; n=178) 408; n=180) 408; 177 (80.8)177 42 (19.2) 60
------
- -
- Whitney test) Whitney 44.8±57.2 (1 44.8±57.2 7.0±4.7 30.0; n=45) 360; n=77)360; 53 (72.6) 20 (27.4) 53 28 (34.6 60 (78.9 16 (21.1 71 (91)
7 (9)
s pr as (65 30 22 27 25
(1.8 .4
mr lso, AFS lesion, imary ) ) ) )
-
- <0.001 <0.001 0.553 0.553 0.005
d f d
- secondary 46.7±62.0 (1 46.7±62.0 6.7±3.5 (1.8 6.7±3.5 1 360; n=57)360; 42 17 (28.8) 45 (81.8) 10 (18.2) 56 (96.6) 41 (73.2) 15 (26.8) 5.0; n=34) 2 (3.4) (71.2) 12 16 13 15
-
a
meloblastic meloblastic
-
- 38.8±43.0 (1 38.8±43.0 7.9±7.6 (2.5 7.9±7.6 30.0; n=11 192; n=19)192; 14 (73.7) 15 (78.9) 11 (68.8) 5 (26.3) 4 (21.1) 5 (31.2) 10 (50) 10 (50) 5 6 6 9 fibrosarcoma
)
-
- 0.905 0.905 0.957 0.325 0.325 0.030 0.475 0.084 0.084
occurring after an an after occurring
d d g g g f
This article isThis article a fibrosarcoma AF Total recurrence) (% Recurrence/total Treatment recurrence Treatment Table 2.
Resection with continuity defect continuity Resection with
Accepted– Article Adjunctive therapy Adjunctive Fulguration Segmental resection Marginal resection Enucleation C Excision
urettage ameloblastic fibroma, fibroma, ameloblastic
Radiotherapy Chemotherapy No Yes No Yes
occurring after an ameloblastic fibroma anameloblastic occurring after
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
a
AFS – -
a for the lesions with available information about treatment and recurrence. treatment and about information with lesions available the for
meloblastic fibrosarcoma meloblastic AF 1/8 (12.5)1/8 (12.5)1/8 - peripheral ------
41/207 (20.4) 34/167 4/18 (22.2) 4/18 AF 1/16 (6.3) 1/16 (33.3)2/6 - central ,
------
AFS
(19.8)
- primary primary
12/49 (24.5) 12/49 (28.3) 17/60 (34.6) 27/78 (22.8) 13/57 9/19 (47.4) 9/19 2/2 (100) 2/2 (50) 7/14 (100) 2/2 (100) 3/3 - 4/8 (50)4/8
a meloblastic fibrosarcoma meloblastic AFS -
AFS 13/48 (27.1) 13/48 (28.1) 16/57 8/39 (12.2) 5/41 (54.5) 6/11 7/14 (50) 7/14 (100) 2/2 (100) 1/1 (100) 2/2 2/5 (40)2/5 - primary
- (20.5)
as primary lesion, AFS lesion, primary as AFS
3/11 (27.3) 3/11 10/20 (50) 10/20 3/9 (33.3)3/9 (66.7)2/3 (33.3)1/3 8/16 (50) 8/16 (100) 1/1 2/5 (40)2/5 - secondary - - -
- secondary secondary -
a meloblastic meloblastic This article isThis article CI rootresorption Tooth Locularity perforation Cortical bone Bone Jaw Treatment Factor here included different Table 4 table the of column the first to according numbers, by identified are treatment of methods The treatment. c b a re 4. Segmental resection 3. Marginal 2. Enucleation 1. Curettage Treatment here included. and thefactors treatments different to according age patient’s sizeand Lesion Table 3.
Resection with continuity defect continuity Resection with Mann Comparison of the difference in lesion size or patient age between the different methods of of methods different the between age patient or size lesion in difference the of Comparison section - Accepted Article Multilocular Unilocular Yes No Yes No Mandible Maxilla Segmental resection Marginal resection Enucleation C Yes No
confidence interval confidence
urettage
expansion
- . Whitney test Whitney R
factors
ecurrence ecurrence a
.
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
–
for the lesions with available information about about information with available lesions the for Lesion size(cm) Lesion Mean±SD (min Mean±SD rate
11.2
5.1±2.3 (2.0 5.1±2.3 3.8 11.0, n=12611.0,
50.5; n=22 10.0; n=13)
4.0 (n=1) c max; n)
± for for
± 2.3 9.8 central central
(
( 0.3 3.0
Recurrence/total ) ) - -
(% recurrence) – -
20/114 (17.5) 20/114 (14.3) 18/126 (22.9) 35/153 (21.3) 37/174 (20.4) 34/167 11/65 (16.9) 11/65 (13.1) 13/99 -
6/34 (17.6) 6/34 (12.2) 5/41 (22.2) 4/18 for the lesions with available information about both recurrence recurrence both about available information with thelesions for
ameloblastic fibromas ameloblastic 2/29 (6.9) 2/29 (9.5) 4/42 (6.3) 1/16 (33.3)2/6 for for (3 <0.001 (2 0.857 (1 - - - patients presenting central ameloblastic fibromas, ameloblastic central presenting patients
4) 4) 3) 2) p 0.002 0.038 0. (1
value value 803 803
-
4) 4)
0.261 (2 (1 b,c - -
4) 3) 0.148 0.365 0.480 0.528 0.169 0.207
p 0.502 0.626 0.055 0.18 0.126
value
(primary lesions only) only) lesions (primary
8
a a a 23.5 (3 28.7±16.9 16.2 a
a a Mean±SD (min Mean±SD b b b b a 13.0±9.2 (013.0±9.2 ,h ,d ,e ,g ,f ,i
Patient age Patient age ± ± max; n) n=192) (years) both both n=26 n=19) 11.6 7.0 n=6 0.348 (0.077, 1.584 (0.077, 0.348 1 3.223 (0.563, 1.348 1 3.541 (0.467, 1.286 1 8.441 (0.941, 2.818 1 5.304 (0.713, 1.945 1 2.349 (0.023, 0.233 2.044 (0.033, 0.261 3.613 (0.346, 1.118 1.872 (0.009, 0.133 4.345 (0.075, 0.571 2.909 (0.090, 0.511
Odds ratio (95% CI) (95% Odds ratio ( )
10 ) recurrence recurrence
(
4
-
- - - 47; 48; 60; 27; -
according to to according (3 <0.001 (2 0.069 (1 - - - and 4) 4) 3) 2) p 0.363 <0.001 0.184 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) the (1
value value o n l k j
m
-
4) 4)
factor
0.119 (1 b,c (2 -
3) p - 0.172 0.503 0.627 0.064 0.194 0.217 0.201 0.853 0.135 0.589 0.450 4) 4)
s value
This article isThis article d c b a CI a Occurring rootresorption Tooth Locularity perforation Cortical bone expansion Bone Jaw Treatment Factor included. here factors the and recurrence both about information with lesions available Table 5 o n m l k j resection i h g f e d c b a
Odds ratio of the recurrence probability of segmental resection in relation to curettage to inrelation resection segmental of probability the recurrence of Odds ratio and segmental resection marginal between therecurrence rate of theof difference Significance Odds ratio of ratioof Odds Significance of the difference of therecurrence of theof difference Significance Resection with continuity defect continuity with Resection with Resection
Odds ratio of the recurrence probability of marginal resection in relation to curettage relation to in resection marginal of probability recurrence the ratioof Odds Significance of the difference of the recurrence rate between enucleation and and enucleation between therecurrence rate of the of difference Significance Fisher’s exact test exact Fisher’s test exact Fisher’s Significance of the difference of the recurrence rate between curettage and and curettage between therecurrence rate of the of difference Significance Significance of the difference of the recurrence rate between between therecurrence rate of difference the of Significance chi Pearson’s enucleation to inrelation resection segmental of probability recurrence the of ratio Odds segmentalresection and enucleation between therecurrence rate of difference the of Significance enucleation and curettage between therecurrence rate of difference the of Significance chi Pearson’s Odds ratio of the recurrence probability of segmental resection in relation to marginal resection to inrelation resection segmental of probability recurrence the Odds ratioof Odds ratio of the recurrence probability of marginal resection in relation in resection marginal of probability theof recurrence ratio Odds
Accepted- Article Yes No Yes No Multilocular Unilocular Yes No Yes No Mandible Maxilla Segmental resection Marginal resection Fulguration Enucleation C
confidence interval confidence
urettage
. Recurrence rate for rate for Recurrence .
fter an ameloblastic fibroma ameloblastic an fter
- - the
squared test squared squared test squared protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
continuity defect continuity recurrence probability of enucleation in in enucleation of probability recurrence
c
ameloblastic ameloblastic fib Recurrence/total
(% recurrence) 22/61 (36.1) 22/61 (33.8) 25/74 (33.9) 21/62 (22.8) 13/57 17/59 (28.8) 17/59 9/34 (26.5) 9/34 (38.9) 7/18 10/20 (50) 10/20 (37) 10/27 1/12 (8.3) 1/12 7/28 (25) 7/28 (50) 7/14 (100) 2/2 (100) 2/2 (100) 3/3 1/5 (20)1/5 (50)1/2 ?
rosarcomas
rate between curettage and segmental resection segmental and curettage between rate
0.049 0.049 0.176 0.300 0.300 0.061 0.061 0. p
0.084 0.084 0.334 0.694 0.187 0.187 0.425 0.570 according to different factors factors different to according
016 value value relation
a,h a,d a,e a,g a,f b b b a a a
marginal resection and curettage andcurettage resection marginal
to curettage to 2.471 (0.872, 7.004) (0.872, 2.471 1 2.244) (0.028, 0.253 1 1.805) (0.178, 0.567 1 21.467) (0.237, 2.256 1 8.503) (0.031, 0.510 1 2.379) (0.272, 0.805 1 0.997) (0.088, 0.295 1 - - -
Odds ratio (95% CI) (95% Odds ratio
to enucleation to marginal marginal
marginal resection marginal –
resection
for the the for i
p
0.089 0.217 0.337 0.479 0.639 0.695 0.049
value
- - -
This article isThis article numbers by are identified treatment of The methods c b a SD AFS AF Treatment fibrosarcomas. ameloblastic Table 6 i resection h (or fulguration) g f (or fulguration) e
Odds ratio of the recurrence probability of probability the recurrence of Odds ratio Significance of the difference of the recurrence rate between segmental resection and curettage and resection segmental between therecurrence rate of theof difference Significance Comparison of the difference in difference the of Comparison Significance of the difference of therec of the of difference Significance Resection with continuity defect continuity Resection with Significance of the difference of the recurrence rate between marginal resection and enucleation andenucleation resection marginal between therecurrence rate of the of difference Significance Mann between therecurrence rate of difference the of Significance
Accepted Article- 5. Segmental resection 5. Segmental resection 4. Marginal 3. Fulguration 2. Enucleation 1. resection 4. Segmental resection 3. Marginal 2. Enucleation 1. Curettage – central
standard deviation, AF deviation, standard Curettage - .
Whitney test Whitney Time offollow Time
protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
- up for different methods of treatment for for oftreatment methods different up for
a a
-
central central 224.0±123.2 (120 224.0±123.2 105.0±106.1 (30.180; n=2) 105.0±106.1
93.3±114.8 (6 93.3±114.8 (2 44.6±51.4 32.6±31.2 (2 32.6±31.2 (1 42.8±51.5 (47 81.5±48.8
Mean±SD (min Mean±SD
25.0±24.2 (2 25.0±24.2 (1 43.3±66.5 mean follow mean - Time of follow Time of
central ameloblastic fibromas, AFS fibromas, ameloblastic central urrence rate between segmental resection and enucleation enucleation and resection segmental between urrence rate segmental resection segmental -
- - 384; n=146) 384; - - - - 144; n=54)144; n=15)216; - 84; n=14) n=17)408; n=3)120; up 116; n=2)116; - - max; n) max; 360; n=3) 360; time time - up , according to the first column of the table column the toof according first ,
between the different methods of treatment of methods different the between
(1 (3 (2 (1 (4 (3 (2 (1 marginal resection marginal
------in relation to relation in 2) 4) 3) 2) 5) 4) 3) 5) central ameloblastic fibromas ameloblastic central
0.083 0.083 0.067 0.169 0.420 0.351 0.233 1.000 0.004 -
ameloblastic fibrosarcomas ameloblastic
(1 (2 (1 (3 (2 - - - - - p 3) 4) 0.073 3) 5) 4)
marginal resection value value
0.248 0.248 0.313 0.164 (2 0.233
and b,
c (1 (1
segmental segmental - - - 4) 4) 5 )
0.015 0.015 0.527 0.077
and
.
This article isThis article Accepted Article protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
This article isThis article Accepted Article protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
This article isThis article Accepted Article protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.
This article isThis article Accepted Article protected byprotected copyright. All rightsreserved.