BackgroundOdontogenic tumors (OTs) are considered important among oral lesions because of their clinicopathological heterogeneity, and variable biological behavior. This paper aims to determine the frequency and distribution of OTs, over a period of 10 years, at a public university in Northeastern Brazil and compare this data with previous reports. Material and MethodsWe reviewed all cases of OTs from oral pathology laboratory of University of Pernambuco (UPE), from 2004 to 2014. Diagnoses were re-evaluated and the tumors were classified according to the latest (2005) World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. In addition, we searched in the English-language literature retrospective studies on OTs that used the same classification.ResultsData was obtained allowing the analysis of the tissue hemodynamics. We were able to map the vascularization of the face and it was possible to access three arteries of small diameter (0,60mm angular artery; 0,55mm greater palatine artery; 0,45mm infraorbital artery).ConclusionsOTs are uncommon neoplasms with geographic variation. Our clinicopathological features are according to literature. In the present study, KCOT was the most frequent one, showing that the new classification of OTs altered the distribution of these lesions and possibly made KCOT the most common OT observed in diagnostic services worldwide. Key words:Odontogenic tumors, jaw neoplasms, epidemiology, oral pathology.

Background: Actinic cheilitis (AC) is a potentially malignant disorder of the lip, characterized by epithelial and connective tissue alterations caused by chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation. In the past decades, diverse studies have been conducted in lip carcinogenesis and many biomarkers have been identified in lip lesions, yet there is no scientific evidence that determines its usefulness in the clinical setting or in histopathological routine. Therefore, we conducted the first systematic review in this field to summarize the results of published studies on immunohistochemical biomarkers in lip carcinogenesis, to evaluate if there is a marker than can distinguish the different histological grades of AC. Material and Methods: Retrospective studies that investigated immunohistochemical biomarkers in AC defined on standardised histological assessment were gathered from five databases and evaluated. Each study was qualitatively evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Tools from SUMARI. Results: The proliferation marker Ki-67 was the most studied biomarker and we observed, through meta-analysis, that it was differently expressed between AC and lip cancer, but not in AC subgroups. Most articles had a high risk of bias. Conclusions: In summary, the literature lacks quality follow up studies in actinic cheilitis. Multi-centre cohort studies, with patients stratified by treatment type and the use of image analysis software, could be the solution to further address the issues of investigating potentially malignant lesions and help change clinical practice, in terms of individualizing patients' treatment and prognosis prediction.