Journal of medical case reports · 2019
Diagnosis and treatment of oral focal mucinosis: a case series.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Higuchi Yusuke, Tsushima Fumihiko, Sumikura Kanako, Sato Yuriko, Harada Hiroyuki, Kayamori Kou, Ikeda Tohru
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oral focal mucinosis, the oral counterpart of cutaneous focal mucinosis, is a rare disease. As it has no characteristic clinical or radiological features, diagnosis is established by histopathological and immunohistological examination. We present three cases of oral focal mucinosis occurring in the retromolar (which is extremely rare) and gingival regions.
CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 involved a 26-year-old Japanese man with radiolucency in the right retromolar region on panoramic radiograph and computed tomography; no obvious protrusion was observed in the region. This finding was clinically diagnosed as a tumor of the retromolar region. Case 2 involved a 60-year-old Japanese woman. A tumor-like mass of tissue was identified on the buccal gingiva at the maxillary right canine and first premolar region. The lesion measured 7 × 6 mm and exhibited elastic hardness and healthy-colored mucosa. The lesion was diagnosed as an epulis. Case 3 involved a 47-year-old Japanese woman. A tumor-like mass of tissue was identified on the buccal gingiva at the maxillary right canine and first premolar region. The lesion measured 10 × 10 mm and exhibited elastic hardness and redness of the surface mucosa. This lesion was also diagnosed as an epulis. Resection was performed in all three cases, and the lesions were histopathologically diagnosed as oral focal mucinosis. Postoperative courses were uneventful and, thus far, there have been no recurrences.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is difficult to diagnose oral focal mucinosis based on clinical symptoms and imaging findings, the disease should be considered a possibility when diagnosing benign oral tumors. We believe that an emphasis on histopathologic study is essential to confirm the clinical suspicion.
CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 involved a 26-year-old Japanese man with radiolucency in the right retromolar region on panoramic radiograph and computed tomography; no obvious protrusion was observed in the region. This finding was clinically diagnosed as a tumor of the retromolar region. Case 2 involved a 60-year-old Japanese woman. A tumor-like mass of tissue was identified on the buccal gingiva at the maxillary right canine and first premolar region. The lesion measured 7 × 6 mm and exhibited elastic hardness and healthy-colored mucosa. The lesion was diagnosed as an epulis. Case 3 involved a 47-year-old Japanese woman. A tumor-like mass of tissue was identified on the buccal gingiva at the maxillary right canine and first premolar region. The lesion measured 10 × 10 mm and exhibited elastic hardness and redness of the surface mucosa. This lesion was also diagnosed as an epulis. Resection was performed in all three cases, and the lesions were histopathologically diagnosed as oral focal mucinosis. Postoperative courses were uneventful and, thus far, there have been no recurrences.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is difficult to diagnose oral focal mucinosis based on clinical symptoms and imaging findings, the disease should be considered a possibility when diagnosing benign oral tumors. We believe that an emphasis on histopathologic study is essential to confirm the clinical suspicion.