A Retrospective Study of Histopathologic Patterns of Odontogenic Tumors ,CYSTS and Maxillofacial Bone Tumors Submitted to Department of Pathology,A5Year Experience at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital From September 2013to August of 2018.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The objectives of this study were to analyse, compare and contrast the demographic, \nclinical and pathological data of odontogenic tumours , cysts and maxillofacial bone tumors seen at \nTikur Anbesa Hospital, Pathology department and compare with other international data as an aid \nto clinicians in diagnosing odontogenic and maxillofacial bone lesions. \n Materials and Methods: This was a descriptive, retrospective study of odontogenic tumours and cysts \nand bone lesions diagnosed from Sep 2013 - Oct 2018 at this centre. These were analyzed for age, \ngender, site of tumor and histopathologic typing. The odontogenic tumours were classified using the \n2005 World Health Organization classification system. \n Results: From a total of 132 patient cases reviewed , only 107 were having complete records suitable \nfor the study. Of the remaining 107 cases, 59 (55.1%) of the study subjects were males while \nremaining 48(44.9%) were female. M:F ratio of 1:1.2. Mean age of patients was 27.8years . The \ncommonest age group for both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions were in the first and second \ndecades. 60(56.1%) of cases were Benign, 16(15.0%) were Malignant and the rest 31(29%) were nonneoplastic. \nMost \n(94.4%)of \nthe \nbiopsy \nspecimen \nwere \nreceived \nfrom \nMaxillofacial \nsurgery \nunit \nof \n \nYekatit \n12 \nHospital. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nOut \nof \nthe \n31 \nNon-neoplastic \ncases, \n27(87%) \nof \nthe \ncases \nwere \nOdontogenic \ncysts. \nOf \nthese, \n17(63%) \n \noccurred \nin \nmales \nand \n10(37%) \nin females. \nThe \nmean \nage \nof \noccurrence \nof \nOdontogenic \ncysts \nwas \n \n31.56 \nyears.The \nmost \nfrequently \nrecognized \nOdontogenic \ncysts \nwere \nBenign \nOdontogenic \ncyst \n \n9(33.3%), \nfollowed \nby Dentigerous \ncyst \n8(29.6%), \nOdontogenic \nkeratocyst \n5(18.5%)and \nRadicular \ncyst \n \n5(18.5%). \nThe \nmost \ncommonly \naffected \nlocation \nby Odontogenic \ncysts \nwere \nMaxilla \n17(63%) \nfollowed \n \nby \nMandible \n9(33.3%). \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFrom \nthe \n60 \nbenign \ncases, \nthe \ncommonest \nbenign \nOdontogenic \ntumor \nwas \nAmeloblastoma \n15(25%). \n \nThe \nmean \nage \nof \noccurrence \nbeing \n28.8years \nand \nM:F \nratio \nof \n1.14:1. \nThe \ncommonest \nsite \nof \n \noccurrence \nwas \nthe \nmandible \n14(93.3%). \nThe \nsecond \ncommonest \nbenign \nlesion \nfound \nwas \nOssifying \n \nfibroma \n12(20%). \nThe \nmean \nage \nof \noccurrence \nwas \n22.9years \n. It \noccurred \nin 7(58.3%) \nof \nmales \nand \n \n5(41.7%) \nof \nfemales \n& \nboth \nmandible \n6(50%) \nand \nmaxilla \n6(50%) \nwere \nequally \ninvolved. \n \n \n \nMalignant \nlesions \nwere \n16(15%) \nof \nthe \ntotal \ncases. \n12(75%) \nwere \nmales \nand \n4(25%) \nwere \nfemales. \nThe \n \nmean \nage \nwas \n29.6% \n.7 \ncases(43.8%)occurred \nin the \nmaxilla, \n6 (37.5%) \nin \nthe \nmandible \nand \nthe \nrest \n \n3(18.8%) \noccurred \nin Jaw(site \nnot \nspecified). \nOf \nthe \ntotal \n16 \ncases, \nthere \nwere \n4 cases(25%) \nof \n \nOsteosarcoma \nand \n4 cases \n(25%) \nof \nPrimary \nintraosseous \nsquamous \ncell \ncarcinoma \n. \n \n \nConclusion: Odontogenic tumors, cysts and maxillofacial bone lesions show a definite geographic \nvariation. In our study, ameloblastomas were the most frequent odontogenic tumor similar to other \nAfrican studies,but significant variation form studies done in Canada and Brazil. Benign fibroosseous \nlesions \nwere \nthe \nsecond \ncommonest \nlesion \nwhich \nwas \nin contrary \nto \nmost \nliteratures. \n \nDentigerous \ncyst \nwas \nthe \ncommonest \ncyst \nfollowed \nby \nOdontogenic \nKeratocyst \nand \nRadicular \ncysts. \nA \n \ndefinitive \ndiagnosis \ncan \nbe \nmade \non \nthe \nbasis \nof \nclinical \nradiological, \nand \nhistological \nfindings. \n \nKnowledge \nof \nthe \nbiological \nand \nhistological \nbehavior \nof \nthese \nlesions \nis \nrequired \nfor \ntheir \nearly \n \ndetection \nand \neffective \ntreatment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».