ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic characteristics of combined central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) and central ossifying fibroma (COF). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical and histomorphometric analysis of all cases diagnosed as CGCG or COF between 1994 and 2002. RESULTS: A total of 51 cases were included in the study: CGCG (n = 23), COF (n = 25), and combined COF-CGCG (n = 3). All 3 lesions presented expansile, well-defined unilocular radiolucencies, with radiopacities (66%), root resorption (66%) and tooth displacement (33%). Microscopically, areas of classical CGCG and COF were separated by a transition zone of nonvascularized densely packed spindle cells. Surgical procedure resulted in recurrence within 1 year in 1 of 2 patients, calcitonin nasal spray treatment resulted in growth arrest in 1 case. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small number of the combined cases, the biologic behavior of the lesions is uncertain. The CGCG component may drive the clinical behavior toward a more aggressive behavior than classical COF; therefore, close follow-up is recommended.
Subject(s)
Fibroma, Ossifying , Granuloma, Giant Cell , Jaw Diseases , Jaw Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Fibroma, Ossifying/complications , Fibroma, Ossifying/diagnostic imaging , Fibroma, Ossifying/pathology , Granuloma, Giant Cell/complications , Granuloma, Giant Cell/diagnostic imaging , Granuloma, Giant Cell/pathology , Humans , Jaw Diseases/complications , Jaw Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Jaw Diseases/pathology , Jaw Neoplasms/complications , Jaw Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Jaw Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Radiography , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to present patients with sinus augmentation in the presence of an antral pseudocyst and the surgical procedure, complications, and outcome. STUDY DESIGN: From 2002 to 2005, 109 patients were scheduled for 1- or 2-stage maxillary sinus floor augmentation (n = 129) because of inadequate alveolar bone height for implant placement. Radiographically, a significant antral pseudocyst was shown. RESULTS: In 8 (7.3%) patients, an antral pseudocyst was diagnosed, and in 2 a history of inactive sinusitis was found preoperatively. A faint dome-shaped radiopacity was found at the lower border of the maxillary sinus. Average lesion size was 5.09 cm2. All implants functioned well at follow-up (mean 20 months). CONCLUSION: A pseudocyst of the maxillary sinus is not a contraindication for sinus augmentation. The low frequency of sinus membrane perforation and postsurgery sinusitis make the operation safe. In large lesions and in cases with an unclear diagnosis, further evaluation is needed before sinus augmentation.
