Camila Camarini1, Elen de Souza Tolentino2. 1. Department of Dentistry, Maringá State University, Avenida Mandacaru, Maringá, Paraná, 87080-000, Brazil. cahhcamarini@gmail.com. 2. Department of Dentistry, Maringá State University, Avenida Mandacaru, Maringá, Paraná, 87080-000, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment as an alternative in the management of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA statement in order to answer the question "Are non-surgical treatments effective as an alternative in the treatment of CGCG?". Two examiners independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data, which included therapeutic protocol, side effects, and need for surgical supplementation. RESULTS: Among 1712 studies, 15 were included, totaling 145 patients. Calcitonin, intralesional corticosteroids, and denosumab were the medications used. For calcitonin (n = 61), complete remission was found in 30 cases. For intralesional triamcinolone (n = 68), reduction in size was observed in most cases (n = 39). Four cases received subcutaneous denosumab and showed absence of active bone metabolism in the region, of which three presented ossification. Combination of drug therapies (n = 29) was reported in one study and included subcutaneous interferon and oral imatinib. More and less side effects were found for interferon and corticosteroids, respectively. Forty percent of patients required additional surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite the side effects presented and the need for additional surgery in some patients, in general, all non-surgical treatments could provide positive results as an alternative for the management of CGCG, especially with regard to reducing the size of the lesion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CGCG is a benign bone lesion that mainly affects young individuals. Although the most common therapy is surgery, its contraindication in some patients, the large extension, and high recurrence rate of the aggressive variant have led the search for non-surgical therapies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment as an alternative in the management of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA statement in order to answer the question "Are non-surgical treatments effective as an alternative in the treatment of CGCG?". Two examiners independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data, which included therapeutic protocol, side effects, and need for surgical supplementation. RESULTS: Among 1712 studies, 15 were included, totaling 145 patients. Calcitonin, intralesional corticosteroids, and denosumab were the medications used. For calcitonin (n = 61), complete remission was found in 30 cases. For intralesional triamcinolone (n = 68), reduction in size was observed in most cases (n = 39). Four cases received subcutaneous denosumab and showed absence of active bone metabolism in the region, of which three presented ossification. Combination of drug therapies (n = 29) was reported in one study and included subcutaneous interferon and oral imatinib. More and less side effects were found for interferon and corticosteroids, respectively. Forty percent of patients required additional surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite the side effects presented and the need for additional surgery in some patients, in general, all non-surgical treatments could provide positive results as an alternative for the management of CGCG, especially with regard to reducing the size of the lesion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CGCG is a benign bone lesion that mainly affects young individuals. Although the most common therapy is surgery, its contraindication in some patients, the large extension, and high recurrence rate of the aggressive variant have led the search for non-surgical therapies.
Authors: Willem Hans Schreuder; Henk van den Berg; Anne Marie Westermann; Zachary Scott Peacock; Jan de Lange Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: J de Lange; H P van den Akker; G O Veldhuijzen van Zanten; H A Engelshove; H van den Berg; H Klip Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2006-07-10 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: André Luís Costa Cantanhede; Sergio Olate; Adriano Freitas de Assis; Márcio de Moraes Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.964