Vijay Ebenezer1, Balakrishnan Ramalingam. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, 600100 India.
Abstract
AIM: To analyze the relative frequency of different types of odontogenic tumors based on the WHO 2005 histopathological classification of odontogenic tumours and to compare the data with published literature. METHODS: Data collected from seven different hospitals in the same region of the city (south Chennai) were systematically searched for all cases of odontogenic tumors operated on between the years 2005-2010. The histopathology slides of the tumours were reanalyzed for cross verification. The data were also checked for duplication and for recurrence cases. Age, gender and site prevalence were also studied. RESULTS: Of the 107 cases collected, with full records, 60 (56%) were odontomas. The second most common was ameloblastoma (14%), followed by Keratocystic odontogenic tumour (13%). The rest of the tumours formed 17% of the total. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive tumour database should be initiated so that cross referring of cases would be easier and the patients, surgeons and the pathologists would be able to safe guard the information about the tumour for future reference. Many private hospitals lack the facility to store and catalogue histopathological evidences for a prolonged period of time.
AIM: To analyze the relative frequency of different types of odontogenic tumors based on the WHO 2005 histopathological classification of odontogenic tumours and to compare the data with published literature. METHODS: Data collected from seven different hospitals in the same region of the city (south Chennai) were systematically searched for all cases of odontogenic tumors operated on between the years 2005-2010. The histopathology slides of the tumours were reanalyzed for cross verification. The data were also checked for duplication and for recurrence cases. Age, gender and site prevalence were also studied. RESULTS: Of the 107 cases collected, with full records, 60 (56%) were odontomas. The second most common was ameloblastoma (14%), followed by Keratocystic odontogenic tumour (13%). The rest of the tumours formed 17% of the total. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive tumour database should be initiated so that cross referring of cases would be easier and the patients, surgeons and the pathologists would be able to safe guard the information about the tumour for future reference. Many private hospitals lack the facility to store and catalogue histopathological evidences for a prolonged period of time.
Authors: Elison N M Simon; Matthias A W Merkx; Edda Vuhahula; David Ngassapa; Paul J W Stoelinga Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2005-05