Immunohistochemical expression of Src protein in peripheral and central giant cell granulomas of the jaws

Khiavi, Monir Moradzadeh; Aghbali, Amirala; Halimi, Monireh; Kouhsoltani, Maryam; Hamishehkar, Hamed

doi:10.4103/0973-029x.125197

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-one studies were mainly associated with behaviour of GCLs of jaws [ Table 3 ]. [ 5 8 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unravelling the role of immunohistochemistry in giant cell lesions of jaws

Gupta¹,

Sharma

Hooda³

et al. 2023

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversies exist in literature regarding nature, pathogenesis, and behaviour of giant cell lesions (GCLs) of jaws. Studies were attempted to solve these mysteries with immunohistochemical analysis, using various biological markers. Thus, the aim of this review is to appraise the role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in evaluating the pathogenesis, cellular phenotype, nature, and behaviour of GCLs of jaws. PubMed, PubMed Central, and Clinical Key (Medline) databases were searched electronically irrespective of date of publication with assortment of several independent terms. Fifty-five articles that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the review. Out of 55 included articles, 49 were associated with nature, pathogenesis, and behaviour and six articles were associated with treatment and outcome prediction. Although IHC solved some of the controversies associated with GCLs of jaws such as the osteoclastic phenotype of multinucleated giant cells, immunoexpression of proliferative markers does not distinct non-aggressive from aggressive central GCL but the nature, histogenesis, pathogenesis, and exact behaviour still remain debatable. With regard to formulation of treatment plan, immunohistochemical analysis revealed that expression of glucocorticoid and calcitonin receptors could act as a tool to decide the therapeutic strategy and aid in therapeutic adjustments according to evolution of the lesion.

show abstract

“…Twenty-one studies were mainly associated with behaviour of GCLs of jaws [ Table 3 ]. [ 5 8 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Khiavi et al . [ 42 ] reported that osteoclastic protein (Src) does not reflect the distinct clinical behaviour of PGCG and CGCG. Martini et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the role of immunohistochemistry in giant cell lesions of jaws

Gupta¹,

Sharma

Hooda³

et al. 2023

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study sought to assess the biological behaviour of giant cell granulomas of jaw through histomorphometric analysis. On the other hand, there are various studies in literature that have used various histochemical markers like AgNOR, CD68, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), Ki-67, p53, osteopontin, integrin α v , Src protein, TRAP (tartrateresistant acid phosphatase), Mouse Double Minute 2 homolog (MDM2), Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA), factor XIII, MMP-2, MMP-9, CD105, CD34, CD31, Cathepsin D [2,5,15,[18][19][20][21]. However, there is no consensus amongst the authors regarding the role of these histochemical markers in determining the behaviour of giant cell granulomas of jaw; hence, we are planning to conduct a study in future using some of these markers to clarify their role in assessing the behaviour of these two lesions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giant Cell Granulomas of Jaws: a Clinicopathologic Study

Gupta¹,

Narwal²,

Kamboj³

et al. 2019

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of present study was to investigate and correlate the histological findings in central giant cell granuloma and peripheral giant cell granuloma of jaws with clinical and radiographic interpretations of the lesion. Material and Methods In present study, data from 14 cases of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) and 9 cases of peripheral giant cell granuloma (PGCG) were analysed, focusing on demographic, clinical and radiographic features. For each patient, microscopic slides were assessed in terms of histologic features of giant cells i.e. number of giant cells, mean number of nuclei/giant cell, pattern of distribution, size and relative size index of giant cells, percentage fractional surface area (FSA) occupied by giant cells and stromal characteristics. Data collected was subjected to statistical analysis. Fisher-exact test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, one-way ANOVA test and Student’s t-test were used for analysis. Results No significant difference was found between PGCG and CGCG in relation to all the traits that were evaluated. It was observed that mean number of giant cells and mean FSA was more in aggressive CGCG as compared to non-aggressive CGCG. Conclusions Further studies on large sample size are required to confirm the relationship between histomorphometric features of giant cells and behaviour of giant cell granulomas of jaws.

show abstract

“…However, the understanding of the possible origin of this lesion is a very important issue to manage and control these disease. [ 1 2 21 22 ] Studies on giant-cell granulomas have recently shifted toward mononuclear cells, since many investigators believe that mononuclear cells are the proliferative component of these lesions and are responsible for their biological behavior. Several studies have suggested that the cellular component shows characteristics of osteoclast progenitor cells, macrophages, myofibroblasts endothelial cells, or fibroblasts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%