4.1 Article

Post-Condylectomy Histopathologic Findings in Patients With a Positive 99mTc Methylene Diphosphonate Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomographic Diagnosis for Condylar Hyperplasia

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages 1005-1012

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.11.030

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe and correlate with age the histopathologic findings observed in a group of specimens obtained from patients who underwent high condylectomy. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 27 condylar specimens from patients with facial asymmetry, suspected condylar hyperplasia (CH), and a positive diagnosis by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were evaluated. Histopathologic variables measured in the mandibular condyles were thickness of fibrous, proliferative, and hyperplasic cartilage layers and total tissue thickness. Results: The thickness of the fibrous layer (P =.014) and proliferative layer (P =.005) and total thickness (P =.007) were significantly greater in the patients studied compared with the literature reference values, and 66.6% of cases presented cartilage islands in the calcified region. Seventeen patients no older than 22 years (85%) showed this finding, whereas only 1 patient at least 23 years old did. Therefore, the presence of cartilage islands was significantly related to age (P =.001). Conclusions: Altogether, the histopathologic findings are consistent with the positive SPECT diagnosis of CH. Histopathologic evaluation showed an increased thickness in the soft tissue layer of the affected mandibular condyle, which was particularly marked for the proliferative layer. Cartilage islands were found mostly in patients no older than 22 years. Therefore, it is not a reliable pathognomic sign for CH because it could be related to normal condylar growth. (C) 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available