Cargando…

Odontogenic Keratocyst: The Dos and Don’ts in a Clinical Case Scenario

Patient: Male, 19-year-old Final Diagnosis: Odontogenic keratocyst Symptoms: Swelling Medication:— Clinical Procedure: Enucleation Specialty: Otolaryngology OBJECTIVE: Challenging differential diagnosis BACKGROUND: Odontogenic keratocysts are odontogenic cysts that increase in dimension based on gro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roman, Călin Rareș, Faur, Cosmin Ioan, Boţan, Emil, Ghiurca, Raul Sorin, Moldovan, Mădălina Anca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9361780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35923086
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/AJCR.936641
Descripción
Sumario:Patient: Male, 19-year-old Final Diagnosis: Odontogenic keratocyst Symptoms: Swelling Medication:— Clinical Procedure: Enucleation Specialty: Otolaryngology OBJECTIVE: Challenging differential diagnosis BACKGROUND: Odontogenic keratocysts are odontogenic cysts that increase in dimension based on growth factors and have a high recurrence rate. The radiological features of odontogenic keratocysts can be confusing owing to their similarity with other intraosseous cysts. The aim of treatment is to minimize patient morbidity and to reduce the risk of recurrence, along with complete surgical excision. CASE REPORT: We report a case of a young man who presented to our hospital for a cystic lesion located in the posterior left mandible with clinical and radiological features of a dentigerous cyst. The lesion was treated accordingly for this diagnosis by enucleation. During surgery, a thick and firm cystic membrane was identified. Histopathological examination of the specimen established the final diagnosis of odontogenic keratocyst by identifying squamous epithelium with focal parakeratosis and ulceration and a diffuse inflammatory lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate. The patient’s evolution was favorable, with no sign of recurrence on cone beam computed tomography examination at the 6-month follow-up and with healing of the surgical defect. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of odontogenic keratocyst is challenging, requiring preoperative 3-dimensional imaging and biopsy for extensive lesions. Adjuvant biochemical and immunological examination of cystic aspirate could sometimes be helpful for making a correct diagnosis. The treatment needs to be individualized according to the patient’s age and the tumor’s histopathological type and features. If the histopathological examination of surgical specimen indicates a more aggressive lesion than expected, a careful and individualized follow-up is imperative. No reintervention is needed if the patient does not present evidence of recurrence.