The findings of this retrospective study suggest an association between orthodontic treatment and the development of this IBC. This occurrence may be multifactorial; further research in the dental science is required.

CAM was effective in helping cicatrization and wound healing. CAM supported the growth of the epithelium and, thus, facilitated migration and reinforced adhesion. It also decreased the pain of subjects. Regarding dental implants, the use of CAM is not cost effective. New studies evaluating other oral conditions are encouraged.

Classic granular cell tumor is a mesenchymal neoplasm that commonly occurs on the skin, but is not infrequently found in the oral cavity, primarily on the dorsal tongue. Diagnosis is usually straightforward with hematoxylin and eosin stained slides. Immunohistochemical studies on classic granular cell tumor shows positive immunostaining for S-100 and vimentin, while CD68 is variably positive. We report a case of otherwise unremarkable oral granular cell tumor that was immunohistochemically negative for S-100, and positive for vimentin and CD68, and discuss the differential diagnosis. The results of the immunohistochemical studies in our case are compared with those of classic S-100 positive oral granular cell tumors, as well as cutaneous and oral S-100 negative granular cell tumors. Classic S-100 positive granular cell tumors and S-100 negative granular cell tumors of the oral cavity can only be distinguished by immunohistochemical studies; however, the necessity of this distinction is unclear, as both are benign lesions in which recurrence is unlikely.

No abstract