4.1 Article

Chnicopathological and immunocytochemical study of multifocal epithelial hyperplasia

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 2211-2217

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.11.035

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We present the clinicopathological findings after reviewing 52 patients affected by multifocal epithelial hyperplasia (MEH), previously known as focal epithelial hyperplasia and the results of an immunocytochemical study. Patients and Methods: We reviewed the clinical files and microscopic slides from 52 MEH-affected patients and new slides were immunostained with a polyclonal antibody against high molecular weight cytokeratins. Results: More than 95% of the patients were in poverty (<200 dollars monthly family income). Females comprised 7 1. 1% of the MEH patients, 69.3% were in the first and second decades and buccal mucosa, lips, and tongue were more frequently affected. Ninety-two percent of the patients had a direct relative with similar lesions. In hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides, prominent multiple nucleoli were observed. Immunocytochemical study showed differences in immunostaining between lesional and normal cells. Cells with strongly immunostained cytoplasm were seen in the prickle layer of the lesional epithelium as well as in the clinically normal neighboring epithelial tissue. Cytokeratin-negative mitosis-like cells and koilocytes were identified within the lesions. Conclusions: The name multifocal epithelial hyperplasia is more accurate than those previously proposed designations, because it is more precise to describe the clinical and microscopic features of the disease. Also, our results suggest that mitosis-like cells and koilocytes are degenerated cells unable to synthesize cytokeratins and that cells with strongly immunostained cytoplasm represent epithelial cells showing an altered cytokeratin metabolic profile. ((C) 2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据