Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Atypical periosteal reaction and unusual bone involvement of ameloblastoma: A case report with 8-year follow-up

  • Received : 2020.09.24
  • Accepted : 2020.11.14
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Unusual radiographic findings of intraosseous ameloblastoma have been reported and discussed. In the case discussed herein, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) clearly showed many radiographic features that were ambiguous on conventional radiographs, including an ill-defined periphery, extensive superficial buccal extension with minimal lingual extension, obvious bucco-crestal expansion, and multiple triangular (Codman's triangle-like) areas of periosteal reaction. Based on the above-mentioned findings, the differential diagnosis was a long-term infected benign or low-grade malignant lesion. An incisional biopsy was performed, and the histopathologic diagnosis was acanthomatous ameloblastoma. Recurrence of the lesion was clearly detected on CBCT images at 4 and 8 years after surgery. These unusual radiographic findings have never been reported to be associated with ameloblastoma, and thus may contribute to novel concepts in radiographic interpretation in the future. This report also underscores the important role played by CBCT as a comprehensive diagnostic tool and for definite confirmation of recurrence.

Keywords

References

  1. Vered M, Muller S, Heikinheimo K. Benign epithelial odontogenic tumours. In: El-Naggar AK, Chan JK, Rubin Grandis J, Takata T, Slootweg P. WHO classification of head and neck tumours. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Reserch on Cancer; 2017. p. 215-7.
  2. Intapa C. Analysis of prevalence and clinical features of ameloblastoma and its histopathological subtypes in southeast Myanmar and lower northern Thailand populations: a 13-year retrospective study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: ZC102-6.
  3. Becelli R, Carboni A, Cerulli G, Perugini M, Iannetti G. Mandibular ameloblastoma: analysis of surgical treatment carried out in 60 patients between 1977 and 1998. J Craniofac Surg 2002; 13: 395-400. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200205000-00006
  4. Baghdady M. Principles of radiographic interpretation. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2014. p. 271-84.
  5. Black CC, Addante RR, Mohila CA. Intraosseous ameloblastoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 585-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.02.040
  6. Kawai T, Kishino M, Hiranuma H, Sasai T, Ishida T. A unique case of desmoplastic ameloblastoma of the mandible: report of a case and brief review of the English language literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 258-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70282-9
  7. Katsura K, Maruyama S, Suzuki M, Saku T, Takagi R, Hayashi T. A case of desmoplastic ameloblastoma arising in the maxillary alveolus: the origin and time-course changes in the early stage of tumour development observed on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 126-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/55423624
  8. Ide F, Mishima K, Yamada H, Kikuchi K, Saito I, Kusama K. Intraosseous ameloblastoma with a prominent extraosseous component: pitfalls in diagnosis. Head Neck Pathol 2010; 4: 192-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-010-0182-6
  9. Langlais R, Langland OE, Nortje CJ. Diagnostic imaging of the jaw. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1995.
  10. Gumgum S, Hosgoren B. Clinical and radiologic behaviour of ameloblastoma in 4 cases. J Can Dent Assoc 2005; 71: 481-4.
  11. Kaffe I, Buchner A, Taicher S. Radiologic features of desmoplastic variant of ameloblastoma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 525-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(93)90023-W
  12. Ide F, Obara K, Yamada H, Mishima K, Saito I, Horie N, et al. Hamartomatous proliferations of odontogenic epithelium within the jaws: a potential histogenetic source of intraosseous epithelial odontogenic tumors. J Oral Pathol Med 2007; 36: 229-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00488.x
  13. Lodwick GS. Radiographic diagnosis and grading of bone tumors, with comments on computer evaluation. Proc Natl Cancer Conf 1964; 5: 369-80.
  14. Caracciolo JT, Temple HT, Letson GD, Kransdorf MJ. A modified Lodwick-Madewell grading system for the evaluation of lytic bone lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 150-6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14368
  15. Miller TT. Bone tumors and tumorlike conditions: analysis with conventional radiography. Radiology 2008; 246: 662-74. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463061038
  16. Whaites E, Drage N. Radiography and radiology for dental care professionals. 3rd ed. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone; 2013.
  17. Ida M, Tetsumura A, Kurabayashi T, Sasaki T. Periosteal new bone formation in the jaws. A computed tomographic study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 169-76. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600234
  18. Rana RS, Wu JS, Eisenberg RL. Periosteal reaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: W259-72. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3300
  19. Greenfield GB. Cardinal roentgen features. In: Greenfield GB. Radiology of bone diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1990. p. 405-578.
  20. Mira JM, Picci P, Gold RH. Bone tumors: clinical, radiologic, and pathologic correlations. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1989.
  21. Anbiaee N, Ebrahimnejad H, Sanaei A. Central odontogenic fibroma (simple type) in a four-year-old boy: atypical cone-beam computed tomographic appearance with periosteal reaction. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 109-15. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.2.109