Background and Objectives: This was a retrospective single-center study to analyze and describe the clinical and histological features of all cases of oral solitary fibrous tumor (SFT). Study design: the study included all consecutive cases of oral SFT diagnosed between 2008–2018 at a single tertiary center. Materials and Methods: Clinical data was retrieved from medical charts. The diagnosis of oral SFT was based upon the morphologic features of the lesions, in routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections and confirmed by immunohistochemical analyses including CD34, CD99, Bcl2, and stains for STAT6. Results: Seven cases of oral SFT were found. Of these, three (42%) were in males and four (58%) in females. The age range was 24–63 years (mean 47 ± 13). Four (58%) lesions were located in the buccal mucosa, two (28%) in the labial mucosa and one (14%) on the floor of the mouth. The diameter ranged between 3–50 mm (mean 22 ± 14 mm). All patients were treated with local excision. Follow-up periods were between 2–74 months (mean 41 ± 27). No recurrences were reported. Conclusions: We present a series of oral SFT, which were all non-aggressive in presentation and did not recur after conservative surgery (local excision) over a relatively long follow-up period.

No abstract

ObjectivesCompare recognized microscopic parameters, including variations in width, plaque‐like thickenings, intra‐epithelial microcysts, clefts, mucous, hob‐nail, ciliated and clear cells, between glandular odontogenic cyst (GOC) and GOC‐like cysts, investigate the extent of cyst circumference exhibiting these features, and inflammation.Materials and MethodsArchival records of cysts with histological features of GOC evaluated between 2000 and2020 were retrieved. Slides were revised, and the expression of features throughout the cyst wall was analyzed. Cysts with at least 5 features were classified as GOC, cysts with 3–4 features as GOC‐like.ResultsThe study included 74 cysts, 47 males M, 25 females (2 unknown gender), aged 19–81 years, 62 (83.8%) GOC, 12 (16.2%) GOC‐like. Mandible was involved in 44 (59.5%), maxilla in 30 (40.5%), 18 (25%) were associated with unerupted teeth. Cyst classified as GOC had significantly higher rates of all parameters investigated, (except ciliated and clear cells), than GOC‐like cysts (p ≤ 0.05). 26 (40.6%) cases showed GOC features in >50% of cyst circumference, 21 (32.8%) involved 25–50%, 17 (26.6%) <25%. More than 50% circumference involvement was highly and independently predictive for a diagnosis of GOC, <25% was highly and independently predictive for GOC‐like (p = 0.003). Hobnail cells (p = 0.008) and plaque‐like thickenings (p = 0.038) were significantly more frequent in inflamed cysts.ConclusionBesides the number and type of histological features, GOC can be characterized by their distribution within the cyst circumference (focal Vs diffuse), and it may serve as a new diagnostic aid. It is suggested that GOC and GOC‐like may represent a single spectrum.

Purpose: To know whether there is a correlation between maxillary advancement and the nasolabial angle change allows to preoperatively predict the precise affect a planned maxillary advancement will have over the nasolabial angle. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the maxillary advancement and the nasolabial angle. Methods: The study is a retrospective analysis of 32 patients (12 males and 20 females, mean age 21 ± 3.4 years) who underwent a maxillary advancement. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken preoperatively and postoperatively. The lateral cephalograms were traced. Measurements were evaluated statistically using paired sample t-test and Pearson's correlation test. Results: The mean maxillary advancement was 4.81 ± 3.01 mm with a mean vertical change of −0.28 ± 2.80 mm. The nasolabial angle decreased by a mean of 3.78 ± 9.64° with statistical significance of P = 0.03 using a paired sample t-test, however using Pearson's correlation test, no direct correlation between maxillary advancement and the nasolabial angle was found. Furthermore, the study contains a review of the literature from the last 25 years, which shows that in most studies there was no correlation and in some patients even opposite results. Conclusion: Maxillary advancement might influence the nasolabial angle; however, preoperatively predicting the influence a maxillary advancement will have over the nasolabial angle is difficult, and further studies need to be conducted.