2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cemento-ossifying fibroma and juvenile ossifying fibroma: Clarity in terminology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
14
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
1
14
1
Order By: Relevance
“…JPOF can occur in adults but patients are nevertheless significantly younger than those described here (mean 44 years). COF typically shows rimming of activated osteoblasts and occasionally a matrix-free rim at the periphery separating the lesion from preexisting bone, neither of which was observed in the current cases [3,12]. COD typically is centered around the teeth roots and in the majority of cases lacks an expansile growth, a finding distinctly different from the presented cases.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…JPOF can occur in adults but patients are nevertheless significantly younger than those described here (mean 44 years). COF typically shows rimming of activated osteoblasts and occasionally a matrix-free rim at the periphery separating the lesion from preexisting bone, neither of which was observed in the current cases [3,12]. COD typically is centered around the teeth roots and in the majority of cases lacks an expansile growth, a finding distinctly different from the presented cases.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…As long as no additional molecular data suggests the cases from our series to belong to a separate fibro-osseous subtype, we propose to broaden the criteria defining ossifying fibroma and to consider revising the name from cemento-ossifying fibroma to conventional ossifying fibroma comprising odontogenic and non-odontogenic subtypes. However, this opinion is not shared by other authors who recently proposed to more strictly separate COF as an odontogenic neoplasm from the juvenile, non-odontogenic subtypes of OF [3]. Alternatively, a new category of ossifying fibroma of non-odontogenic origin might be required.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…It is considered a distinct condition from the cemento-ossifying fibroma (COF), because of its non-odontogenic origin and particular clinicopathological features. 1,2 In addition, JOF presents a peculiar clinical behavior, with two clinicopathological variants: trabecular JOF (TJOF) and psammomatoid JOF (PJOF). 1,2 While TJOF is more common in the maxilla of individuals up to 12 years of age, available clinical data demonstrate that PJOF can occur not only in young people but in individuals ranging from 3 months to 72 years old.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,2 In addition, JOF presents a peculiar clinical behavior, with two clinicopathological variants: trabecular JOF (TJOF) and psammomatoid JOF (PJOF). 1,2 While TJOF is more common in the maxilla of individuals up to 12 years of age, available clinical data demonstrate that PJOF can occur not only in young people but in individuals ranging from 3 months to 72 years old. 3 PJOF have no sex predominance and mainly affects extragnathic sites, especially the paranasal sinuses, periorbital bones, and skull base.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation