Odontogenic Keratocyst in Jamaica: a review of five new cases and five instances of recurrence together with comparative analyses of four treatment modalities

Ogunsalu, C; Daisley, H; Kamta, A; Kanhai, D; Mankee, Melissa S.; Maharaj, Aarti

doi:10.1590/s0043-31442007000100017

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way, the only paper published before the introduction of the 2005 WHO definition of KCOT was that by Morgan et al 93 who excluded patients with the orthokeratinised variant of OKCs from their analysis. It is surprising that even after the introduction of the KCOT concept, some authors 4,45,86,102,110 still rely on terminology originating from the 1992 WHO Classification of Odontogenic Tumours and Cysts 178 and broadly use the designation of parakeratocyst. Some authors unacceptably discriminate between the parakeratinising and orthokeratinising type based on radiographs where the multilocular type is characterised histologically by parakeratinised epithelium, and the unilocular type is characterised by epithelium that is orthokeratinised.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the recurrence rate for keratocystic odontogenic tumour in relation to treatment modalities

Kaczmarzyk¹,

Mojsa²,

Stypulkowska

2012

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

138

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the recurrence rate for keratocystic odontogenic tumour in relation to treatment modalities

Kaczmarzyk¹,

Mojsa²,

Stypulkowska

2012

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

138

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…59 18 report had been provisionally diagnosed as ameloblastomas. It was clear from the significant proportion of OOC (or orthokeratotic type of the former odontogenic keratocyst) in the SR-included reports that they could have played a major role in the variability of outcomes in many reports, which did not distinguish between the types of keratinization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keratocystic odontogenic tumour: systematic review

MacDonald-Jankowski¹

2011

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this review is to evaluate the principal clinical and conventional radiographic features of non-syndromic keratocystic odontogenic tumour (KCOT) by systematic review (SR), and to compare the frequencies between four global groups. Methods: The databases searched were the PubMed interface of Medline and LILACS. Only those reports of KCOTs that occurred in a series of consecutive cases, in the reporting authors' caseload, were considered. Results: 51 reports, of 49 series of cases, were included in the SR. 11 SR-included series were in languages other than English. KCOTs affected males more frequently and were three times more prevalent in the mandible. Although the mean age at first presentation was 37 years, the largest proportion of cases first presented in the third decade. The main symptom was swelling. Over a third were found incidentally. Nearly two-thirds displayed buccolingual expansion. Over a quarter of cases recurred. Only a quarter of all SR-included reported series of cases included details of at least one radiological feature. The East Asian global group presented significantly as well-defined, even corticated, multilocular radiolucencies with buccolingual expansion. The KCOTs affecting the Western global group significantly displayed an association with unerupted teeth. Conclusions: Long-term follow-up of large series that would have revealed detailed radiographic description and long-term outcomes of non-syndromic KCOT was lacking.

show abstract

“…The peak incidence is in the second and third decades of life with a gradual decline thereafter [13][14][15]. Peak incidence in both sexes occur in the third decade [5] frequency of occurrence is higher in male than female [11,13,14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mandible is the more favoured site than the maxilla, 65 vs. 35% [11] and 78 vs. 22% [14]. Ramus and the molar area are the most favoured sites [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%