Neglected ameloblastomas: a case report

Rakotoarison, Richard Aurélien; Willy, Ratovondrainy; Randriamanantena, Tahiriarivelo; Rakoto, Fanomezantsoa Andriamparany

doi:10.1051/mbcb/2012012

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To decrease these sequelae, immediate or delayed reconstruction are necessary. While an immediate reconstruction is favored by many [7,9,11], it is not always possible due to patient and technical factors [35]. Immediate reconstruction reduces costs, decreases number of surgeries, and allows earlier prosthetic rehabilitation [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giant ameloblastomas: clinico-pathological review of implications of tumor growth rate

Adebayo¹,

Salami²,

Adelusi³

et al. 2020

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Limited number of publications describe the influence of tumor growth rate on clinicopathologic features of giant (extreme or gigantic) forms of ameloblastoma (GA). This paper explores the relationship between these two factors. Objectives: To determine the relationship between tumor growth rate of GA and clinico-pathologic factors such as age, gender and histopathologic subtype. Material and methods: GA cases were selected from the published literature based on the criteria described by Kanoi et al., availability of clinical data, such as age and gender of patient, duration of lesion, and three-dimensional size (volume) of specimen after surgical resection. Data collected were used to calculate individual tumor growth rate using modified formula of Merhara et al. Clinico-pathological features and calculated tumor growth rates were compared with other publications. Results: In total, 18 reviewed patients were included into this study, from sixteen publications with 17 patients who fitted the selection criteria and one case of GA from our center. There was gender balance (male : female ratio, 1 : 1), with age ranging 19-73 years (mean, 44.2 ± 15.6 years). Mean age of patients with GA was much higher than in non-GA cases, with statistically significant difference (p = 0.02). There was mild positive correlation (r = 0.219) between surgical volume and duration of tumor, but it was not statistically significant (p = 0.382). Mean specific growth rate was 85% ± 40.1%/year (range, 19.9-170%/year). Comparison of SGR with other clinico-pathological parameters of GA revealed no statistical significance. Conclusions: GA occurred at a higher mean age than other forms, and the mean tumor growth rate was 85% per year. This had no statistical relationship to clinico-pathological characteristics studied.

show abstract