Premium
Ameloblastic fibroma and ameloblastic fibrosarcoma: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Chrcanovic Bruno Ramos,
Brennan Peter A.,
Rahimi Siavash,
Gomez Ricardo Santiago
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of oral pathology and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.887
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1600-0714
pISSN - 0904-2512
DOI - 10.1111/jop.12622
Subject(s) - medicine , lesion , perforation , radiological weapon , radiology , surgery , materials science , punching , metallurgy
Purpose To integrate the available data published to date on ameloblastic fibromas ( AF ) and ameloblastic fibrosarcomas ( AFS ) into a comprehensive analysis of their clinical/radiological features. Methods An electronic search was undertaken in July 2017. Eligibility criteria included publications having enough clinical, radiological and histological information to confirm a definite diagnosis. Results A total of 244 publications (279 central AF tumours, 10 peripheral AF , 103 AFS ) were included. AF and AFS differed significantly with regard to the occurrence of patients’ mean age, bone expansion, cortical bone perforation and lesion size. Recurrence rates were as follows: central AF (19.2%), peripheral AF (12.5%), AFS (all lesions, 35%), primary (de novo) AFS (28.8%) and secondary AFS (occurring after an AF , 50%). Larger lesions and older patients were more often treated by surgical resections for central AF . Segmental resection resulted in the lowest rate of recurrence for most of the lesion types. AFS treated by segmental resection had a 70.5% lower probability to recur ( OR 0.295; P = .049) than marginal resection; 21.3% of the AFS patients died due to complications related to the lesion. Conclusions Very long follow‐up is recommended for AF lesions, due to the risk of recurrence and malignant change into AFS . Segmental resection is the most recommended therapy for AFS .