Evidence Hub

The importance of clinical and radiological findings for the definitive histopathologic diagnosis of benign fibro-osseous lesions of the jaws: Study of 276 cases

Soluk-Tekkesin M, Sinanoglu A, Selvi F, Cakir Karabas H, Aksakalli N

Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2022

209 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: Benign fibro-osseous lesions (BFOLs) are heterogeneous intraosseous disease processes sharing overlapping histopathologic features and demonstrate a wide range of biological behavior. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance of clinical and radiological findings for the definitive histopathologic diagnosis of benign fibro-osseous lesions of the jaws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional retrospective study evaluating the three main groups of BFOLs: Cemento-osseous dysplasia, ossifying fibromas, and fibrous dysplasia. Previously diagnosed BFOL cases were searched for thoroughly from the archives of Istanbul University, Institute of Oncology, Department of Tumor Pathology in between 2005 and 2015. Clinical and radiological data of these cases were identified and recorded. The histopathologic features were reevaluated from the H&E-stained slides.

RESULTS: A total of 276 BFOL cases were identified and reevaluated for the study. The most common BFOL type was cemento-osseous dysplasia (n = 135), followed by cemento-ossifying fibroma (n = 77), fibrous dysplasia (n = 53) and juvenile ossifying fibroma (n = 11). The female/male ratio was 3.4:1 with a strong predilection for the 4th decade (n = 102). The mandible (n = 209) was the predominantly affected jaw. Prominent osteoblastic rimming around the bony lesion was commonly observed for cemento-ossifying fibroma (n = 60/77), followed by cemento-osseous dysplasia (n = 23/135). Predominant ossification…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 209 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free