A comparative study of syndecan-1 expression in different odontogenic tumors

Etemad‐Moghadam, Shahroo; Alaeddini, Mojgan

doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2016.11.001

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The distribution patterns of syndecan-1 in the epithelia of DC, OKC, and AB in this study were consistent with the findings of other studies [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 ]. They were, however, unlike those of Özcan et al, who reported a different distribution in the OKC, describing it as a strong membranous expression in basal and suprabasal cells only, while, as in this study, it involved the full thickness of DC lining [ 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…e results of this study are consistent with those of Nadalin et al, who found no significant difference in the expression of syndecan-1 between the DC and OKC [37]. ey are also consistent with those of Etemad-Moghadam and Alaeddini [40], who compared syndecan-1 expression in different odontogenic lesions, including AB and OKC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…It is worthwhile to mention here that Nadalin et al observed low or absent expression of syndecan-1 in areas of OKC lining in which there was an alteration in epithelial morphology due to inflammation [37]. e distribution patterns of syndecan-1 in the epithelia of DC, OKC, and AB in this study were consistent with the findings of other studies [37,38,40,41]. ey were, however, unlike those ofÖzcan et al, who reported a different distribution in the OKC, describing it as a strong membranous expression in basal and suprabasal cells only, while, as in this study, it involved the full thickness of DC lining [39].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Some biologic markers have not been investigated in the OKC yet, such as mammary serine protease inhibitor (maspin). Other markers were investigated only in a few studies, such as syndecan-1 [37][38][39][40][41].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Maspin, Syndecan-1, and Ki-67 in the Odontogenic Keratocyst: An Immunohistochemical Analysis

Hammad

Nagrash

Safadi

2020

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) is a controversial lesion that was reclassified as a tumor with the name “keratocystic odontogenic tumor” in 2005. The reclassification was revoked recently in 2017, with a conclusion on the need for further studies on the subject. In this study, the expressions of an important regulatory protein (maspin), an important integral membrane proteoglycan (syndecan-1), and a universal proliferation marker (Ki-67) in the epithelium of the OKC were investigated in comparison with the dentigerous cyst (DC) and ameloblastoma (AB). Twenty-six OKCs, eleven DCs, and ten conventional ABs were immunohistochemically stained for maspin, syndecan-1, and Ki-67. ImageJ was used to analyze the positivity of maspin and syndecan-1. The Ki-67 score was calculated as the percentage of positive nuclei in 5 high power fields. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Student t-test were used as appropriate. Lower expressions of maspin were noted in OKC and DC compared to those in AB, and lower expressions of syndecan-1 were noted in OKC and AB compared to those in DC. The differences, however, did not reach statistical significance (ANOVA and t-test: P>0.05). The Ki-67 score was significantly higher in OKC than in DC (t-test: P<0.05), and not significantly different from AB (t-test: P>0.05). In conclusion, expressions of maspin and syndecan-1 are not strongly representative of differences in behavior between OKC, AB, and DC. However, the expression of Ki-67 indicates comparable proliferative activities of OKC and AB, which are higher than that of DC. Further investigation on the biologic behavior of OKC is still recommended to arrive at more specific conclusions regarding its classification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Maspin, Syndecan-1, and Ki-67 in the Odontogenic Keratocyst: An Immunohistochemical Analysis

Hammad

Nagrash

Safadi

2020

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two‐by‐two comparisons showed significant differences between OM and each of the other tumors, which was predictable due to the lack of an epithelial component and therefore podoplanin staining in OM, also reported by Friedrich et al . The controversy surrounding the pathogenesis of this tumor is complicated by the fact that it responds poorly to immunohistochemical markers . According to our results, it may be assumed that podoplanin appears to have a role in the development and/or progression of the studied odontogenic tumors, except for OM which did not express this marker in the stroma and did not have an epithelial component for podoplanin to be able to function and therefore seems to be independent of this protein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%