Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1, Ricardo Santiago Gomez2. 1. PhD Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: bruno.chrcanovic@mah.se. 2. Professor of Oral Pathology, Department of Oral Surgery and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To integrate the available data published on ameloblastic fibrodentinoma (AFD) and ameloblastic fibro-odontoma (AFO) into a comprehensive analysis of its clinical and radiologic features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken in August 2016. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting cases of AFD or AFO with enough clinical, radiologic, and histologic information to confirm the diagnosis. Demographic data, lesion site and size, treatment approach, and recurrence were analyzed and compared between AFD and AFO. RESULTS: Fifty-four publications reporting on 64 AFDs (60 central, 4 peripheral) and 137 publications reporting on 215 AFOs (211 central, 3 peripheral, 1 unknown) were included. The difference in recurrence rate (when the information about recurrence was provided) was not statistically relevant. The mean age of patients affected by AFD was not statistically different from that of patients affected by AFO. CONCLUSIONS: AFD and AFO presented several similarities: higher prevalence in men and in the mandibles, similar mean age of patients, rate of cortical bone perforation and of the lesions' association with displaced or unerupted teeth and tooth root resorption, mean lesion size, and recurrence rate. The lesions differed in the presence of radiopacities and locularity. Taken together, these data do not support the concept of progressive maturation of these tumoral conditions.
PURPOSE: To integrate the available data published on ameloblastic fibrodentinoma (AFD) and ameloblastic fibro-odontoma (AFO) into a comprehensive analysis of its clinical and radiologic features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken in August 2016. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting cases of AFD or AFO with enough clinical, radiologic, and histologic information to confirm the diagnosis. Demographic data, lesion site and size, treatment approach, and recurrence were analyzed and compared between AFD and AFO. RESULTS: Fifty-four publications reporting on 64 AFDs (60 central, 4 peripheral) and 137 publications reporting on 215 AFOs (211 central, 3 peripheral, 1 unknown) were included. The difference in recurrence rate (when the information about recurrence was provided) was not statistically relevant. The mean age of patients affected by AFD was not statistically different from that of patients affected by AFO. CONCLUSIONS:AFD and AFO presented several similarities: higher prevalence in men and in the mandibles, similar mean age of patients, rate of cortical bone perforation and of the lesions' association with displaced or unerupted teeth and tooth root resorption, mean lesion size, and recurrence rate. The lesions differed in the presence of radiopacities and locularity. Taken together, these data do not support the concept of progressive maturation of these tumoral conditions.