Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2026
How do non-keratocystic lesions respond to decompression?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Turker Jeyda, Schiappa Michael, Mahone Ian, Callahan Nicholas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether non-keratocystic lesions respond to decompression and to quantify the magnitude of change.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 56 patients treated between 2017 and 2022 at the University of Illinois Chicago was conducted. Inclusion criteria were decompression tube placement, histopathologic confirmation of a non-keratocystic lesion, and pre-/post-decompression CBCT suitable for volumetric analysis. Lesion diagnosis was the primary predictor. Primary outcomes were percent volume reduction and rate of volumetric change. One-way ANOVA and t-tests (P < .05) assessed associations.
RESULTS: Lesion diagnosis did not significantly predict percent reduction or rate of change. Dentigerous cysts showed the greatest mean reduction (64.4%), followed by periapical (46.3%) and inflammatory cysts (45.2%). Ameloblastomas demonstrated variable response, with two increasing in size during decompression.
CONCLUSION: Decompression provides meaningful volume reduction in dentigerous, periapical, and inflammatory cysts but is not recommended for conventional ameloblastoma due to the risk of progression and delayed definitive treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 56 patients treated between 2017 and 2022 at the University of Illinois Chicago was conducted. Inclusion criteria were decompression tube placement, histopathologic confirmation of a non-keratocystic lesion, and pre-/post-decompression CBCT suitable for volumetric analysis. Lesion diagnosis was the primary predictor. Primary outcomes were percent volume reduction and rate of volumetric change. One-way ANOVA and t-tests (P < .05) assessed associations.
RESULTS: Lesion diagnosis did not significantly predict percent reduction or rate of change. Dentigerous cysts showed the greatest mean reduction (64.4%), followed by periapical (46.3%) and inflammatory cysts (45.2%). Ameloblastomas demonstrated variable response, with two increasing in size during decompression.
CONCLUSION: Decompression provides meaningful volume reduction in dentigerous, periapical, and inflammatory cysts but is not recommended for conventional ameloblastoma due to the risk of progression and delayed definitive treatment.