Pattern of histologic variants of ameloblastoma in a secondary health care facility in Lagos state a 5-year retrospective study

Ameloblastoma is a benign epithelial odontogenic neoplasm which is common amongst the Yoruba ethinc group. The various histologic types have been elucidated. Aim: This study aimed to assess the prevalent histologic types of ameloblastoma in a Lagos secondary health care facility. Methodology: A 5-year retrospective review of histopathologically diagnosed slides were retrieved. Data extracted include the age, gender, location, ethnicity and histologic variants were analysed by SPSS version 26. Percentages, ratio, mean, standard deviation and crude odd ratio were determined, and p-value ⩽ 0.05 is considered significant. Result: A total of seventy-seven histopathologically diagnosed ameloblastoma slides were retrieved. Males were more affected than females in ratio 1.2:1 with the mean age 33.61±13.3. Ameloblastoma was commonest in the third decade of life and more in the mandible than maxilla. Yoruba ethnic group was most affected. The commonest histologic type was the unicystic type with intraluminal subtype accounting for the largest proportion. There was significant association between histologic types and gender (p= 0.037). Crude odd ratio revealed the odds in the unicystic type between male and female {p=0.041; CI=95%, OR=2.649(1.042-6.733)} and in the follicular between male and female {p=0.013; CI=95%, OR=3.855(1.321-11.288)}. Conclusion: The unicystic histologic type of ameloblastoma was the commonest, occurring more in females and this was followed by the follicular histologic type which occurred more in males in this Lagos State secondary health care facility.

Experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists.

OBJECTIVE: To report the experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists. STUDY DESIGN: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among a cross-section of Nigerian dentists. Information requested included personal experience on wrong-site tooth/teeth extraction and its after-effect, possible reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction and documentation of the event in patients' case. Respondents were also asked if they were aware of any colleagues who had previously experienced wrong-site tooth extraction and possible legal implication of the event, and if they aware of the universal protocol for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong person surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-two (13%) of the respondents reported having extracted a wrong tooth. The event occurred within 5 years after graduation in most cases. Most respondents (53.6%) informed the patient immediately after the event. Only 68% of the respondents documented the event in patient's case record. Most common reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction were heavy workload, presence of multiple condemned teeth and miscommunication between dentists. Fifty-five percent of respondents were aware of a colleague who had extracted a wrong tooth. The most probable legal implication of wrong-site tooth extraction according to the respondents was litigation by the patient. Only 25% of dentists were aware of a universal protocol for preventing wrong-site surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Wrong tooth/teeth extraction is not an uncommon event in the studied environment. The need to be familiar with universal protocol on wrong-site surgery and its legal implications are highlighted.