A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Dentigerous cyst versus unicystic ameloblastoma--differential diagnosis in routine histology. | LitMetric

Dentigerous cyst versus unicystic ameloblastoma--differential diagnosis in routine histology.

J Oral Pathol Med

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Kiel, D-24105 Kiel, Germany.

Published: September 2003

Background: Unicystic ameloblastomas (UAs) and dentigerous cysts (DCs) have an identical clinical and radiographic appearance. Some subtypes of UAs have a better prognosis than solid or multicystic ameloblastomas, and simple enucleation is the adequate treatment. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that UAs with small islands of ameloblastomatous epithelium may be misdiagnosed as a DC or keratocyst if no more than two histologic sections are examined.

Methods: A total of 101 resection specimens from 22 women and 73 men (mean age: 46.5 years) were selected, all showing the clinical and radiographic features of a DC. Only cysts with a minimum diameter of 15 mm in the panoramic X-ray were considered for the present investigation. The histopathologic diagnosis had been routinely established by examining two sections. For our study, the specimens were investigated by step sections at 50 microm and by staining of 5 microm thin sections with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) at 1 mm levels. An average of 15 slides were evaluated per case.

Results: Microscopic examination of the step sections did not reveal ameloblastomatous epithelium in the cyst lining epithelium of the 101 cases. Thus, every primary diagnosis of a dentigerous cyst was confirmed. In four cases, additional rather large odentogenic cell nests were detected with palisading of basaloid cells, while there was a lack of other signs of ameloblastic differentiation. All lesions were completely resected, and no additional treatment was performed.

Conclusions: Step sectioning of larger DCs may reveal associated odontogenic cell nests in some cases but does not lead to the detection of formerly missed ameloblastic cells. Thus, unicystic ameloblastomas are not misdiagnosed if only two slides are prepared for routine diagnosis of DCs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0714.2003.00118.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dentigerous cyst
8
unicystic ameloblastomas
8
clinical radiographic
8
ameloblastomatous epithelium
8
step sections
8
cell nests
8
sections
5
cyst versus
4
versus unicystic
4
unicystic ameloblastoma--differential
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!