Critique of the 1995 review by Reichart et al. of the biologic profile of 3677 ameloblastomas.

This article evaluates the most extensive review of ameloblastomas ever published. Because it suffers from the same limitations as any retrospective review of the literature, its figures cannot be used as an accurate source for such information as prevalence and incidence, racial predilection and recurrence rates. Additional knowledge about the biologic profile of ameloblastomas would come most effectively from a large, long-term prospective study, but the difficulties of establishing one are formidable. A practical alternative would be the pooling of data from several experienced centers. The data obtained, and that contained in future case reports, should address, in a standardized manner, the variables listed in the present article. Incidence figures can be obtained only if all new cases from a well-defined population are recorded in an appropriate registry. The author considers the concept of a 'multilocular' unicystic ameloblastoma, as discussed in the review, to be contradictory.