1998
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0314
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intrabony Neurilemmoma: Diagnosis and Management

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In general, intraosseous schwannoma is considered to have a nonspecific radiographic appearance involving unilocular or multilocular radiolucency, a distinct border and root resorption only in the teeth contacting the lesion. The most common clinical finding is swelling followed by pain and paresthesia []. Moreover, this tumor is often ignored without subjective symptoms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, intraosseous schwannoma is considered to have a nonspecific radiographic appearance involving unilocular or multilocular radiolucency, a distinct border and root resorption only in the teeth contacting the lesion. The most common clinical finding is swelling followed by pain and paresthesia []. Moreover, this tumor is often ignored without subjective symptoms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most common clinical presentation of schwannoma is swelling followed by pain and paresthesia. [9] Swelling was the only feature observed in our patient. Radiographically schwannomas present as well-defined unilocular radiolucency with sclerotic borders but sometimes features, such as cortical expansion, root resorption, spotty calcification, and peripheral scalloping can be evident.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…The radiological features, anatomical location, sex and age of the patient suggested a schwannoma. However, the differential diagnosis might include, clinically as well as radiographically, odontogenic cysts and tumors, pseudocysts and nonodontogenic tumors, which remain less probable in the present context [5,6,7]. Additionally, the MRI aspect in the case of our patient, with a solid mass and no cystic parts, make us clearly distinguish it from odontogenic cystic masses (including ameloblastoma).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%