Journal of endodontics · 2014
10-year follow-up of calcifying odontogenic cyst in the periapical region of vital maxillary central incisor.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Carvalhosa Artur Aburad, de Araújo Estrela Cyntia Rodrigues, Borges Alvaro Henrique, Guedes Orlando Aguirre, Estrela Carlos
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Radiographic images may lead to misinterpretations of lesions of endodontic and nonendodontic origin. This report describes a case of a 10-year follow-up of a calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC) in the periapical region of a vital maxillary central incisor in a 9-year-old boy.
METHODS: The patient revealed a history of a swelling in the periapical area of tooth #9. The patient denied any dental trauma or history of pain. Clinical examination revealed no mobility, but there was discrete discomfort when horizontal pressure was applied. Pulp vitality was present in all maxillary anterior teeth. Radiographs revealed an oval radiolucent lesion in the periapical region of maxillary central incisor. The therapeutic option was enucleation of the periapical lesion and histologic examination of the specimen. Microscopic findings suggested the diagnosis of a COC.
RESULTS: At a follow-up visit 10 years after surgery, panoramic and periapical radiographs showed new bone formation; the patient did not have any pain, and pulp vitality was maintained in all teeth in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: A COC should be part of the differential diagnosis of other jaw lesions, such as apical periodontitis. The definitive diagnosis of a COC can only be made after microscopic evaluation of the specimen. The follow-up is a helpful reference because it confirms the survival of pulp tissue and no recurrence of the COC.
METHODS: The patient revealed a history of a swelling in the periapical area of tooth #9. The patient denied any dental trauma or history of pain. Clinical examination revealed no mobility, but there was discrete discomfort when horizontal pressure was applied. Pulp vitality was present in all maxillary anterior teeth. Radiographs revealed an oval radiolucent lesion in the periapical region of maxillary central incisor. The therapeutic option was enucleation of the periapical lesion and histologic examination of the specimen. Microscopic findings suggested the diagnosis of a COC.
RESULTS: At a follow-up visit 10 years after surgery, panoramic and periapical radiographs showed new bone formation; the patient did not have any pain, and pulp vitality was maintained in all teeth in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: A COC should be part of the differential diagnosis of other jaw lesions, such as apical periodontitis. The definitive diagnosis of a COC can only be made after microscopic evaluation of the specimen. The follow-up is a helpful reference because it confirms the survival of pulp tissue and no recurrence of the COC.