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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".