EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 24 / No 2 (June 2018) J Oral Med Oral Surg, 24 2 (2018) 53-56 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 24, Number 2, June 2018
Page(s) 53 - 56
Section Cas clinique / Short case report
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2017039
Published online 29 June 2018

© The authors, 2018

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Observation

An 8-year-old child was referred to the oromaxillofacial surgery and stomatology department of the Regional University Hospital for the management of a painful swelling of the chin in the mandibular incisor region that increased in size over a period of 3 months (Fig. 1). The only condition reported in the patient’s health record was asthma. The initial clinical examination revealed a firm swelling involving the whole of the mandibular symphysis. The oral mucosa had a normal appearance. Teeth 31 and 41 exhibited Class-III mobility with no cold sensitivity, but the adjacent teeth did not show these findings. Sensitivity in the right and left mental nerve distribution regions was preserved.

An orthopantomograph revealed an osteolytic lesion of the mandibular symphysis associated with apical root resorption in teeth 31 and 41. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) revealed rounded osteolytic lesion (Fig. 2). It measured 30 mm on its longer axis and was bordered laterally by the buds of teeth 33 and 43.

Endodontic treatment was performed on teeth 31 and 41. The patient underwent surgical intervention under general anesthesia, which consisted of the complete enucleation of the brown friable tissue lesion, excision of the “blown-out” cortical bone, and apical resection of teeth 31 and 41. Two suction drains were maintained for 2 days (Figs. 3 and 4). The cavity was not filled with biomaterial or autologous bone. The buds of teeth 33 and 34 and the mental nerves were preserved.

The histopathological examination of the resected specimen proved the existence of a central giant-cell granuloma (CGCG). The mitotic index was estimated at four mitoses per 10 fields at 400× magnification. A blood calcium test was done to rule out a brown tumor, whose pathological appearance is identical to CGCG.

The patient was discharged 48 h after the surgery and attended follow-up visits at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.

Intraoral healing proceeded normally and there were no sensorineural deficits in the labial and mental innervation areas. The chin’s morphology was satisfactory at the time of the first consultation, and teeth 31 and 41 had regained their physiological mobility (Fig. 5). Postoperative X-ray examinations at 6 months showed the first signs of ossification in the bone cavity (Fig. 6).

thumbnail Fig. 1

Front and profile preoperative photographs showing the chin deformation.
thumbnail Fig. 2

Preoperative orthopantomogram and cone-beam computed tomography. Top: Orthopantomogram revealing an osteolytic lesion of the mandibular symphysis, with well-defined margins, flanked by teeth roots 33 and 43 on either side and linked to the root resorption of teeth 31 and 41. Bottom left: sagittal section CBCT focused on no. 31 (tooth rhizalysis). An osteolytic lesion with a thin bony wall can be observed. Bottom right: axial CBCT section focused on the roots of teeth 33 and 43.
thumbnail Fig. 3

Left: vestibular layout. Right: lesion exposure (still surrounded by a thin bone film) after subperiosteal elevation.
thumbnail Fig. 4

Left: surgical site after lesion enucleation. Right: showing the emergence of the two mental nerves.
thumbnail Fig. 5

Postoperative photographs of face from the front (top left) and profile (top right) one and a half months after surgery, showing the disappearance of the chin deformation.
thumbnail Fig. 6

Orthopantomogram 6 months after surgery. Ossification of the cavity left after enucleation.

Discussion

CGCG is a rare benign tumor, representing <7% of all benign mandibular and maxillary tumors at any age [1]. Its incidence is in the general population is 1.1 in 10 million in the general population [2]. It predominantly occurs in the mandible in 75% cases, and it involves the anterior sector in 49% of cases [3].

Chuong et al. classify CGCGs in two forms: aggressive and non-aggressive [4]. The aggressive form measures at least 5 cm, causes perforations or cortical thinning, resorptions, or dental displacements. The clinical evolution of CGCG can be rapid and it shows a strong tendency toward recurrence. A CGCG that recurs and/or measures ≥5 cm is considered aggressive. If this is not the case, at least three of the other criteria listed above must be present for it to be classified as aggressive. From a histological point of view, the mitotic index and giant-cell numbers are high in aggressive tumors, but no cure threshold has yet been identified.

In the present case, the arguments favoring an aggressive form were rapid evolution, the presence of cortical perforations and thinning, and the resorption of the apices of teeth 31 and 41.

Given the clinical and radiological characteristics, an enucleation was decided from the outset. Indeed, the general state had not deteriorated, there was no nerve involvement, and the radiological features (lesion with clear borders, no soft tissue invasion, cortical thinning and repression) suggested a benign tumor.

The other therapeutic alternatives for treating CGCG can be either medical or medicosurgical. Some authors have shown that pharmacological intervention (systematic intralesional injections of corticosteroids, calcitonin, or interferon alpha) may be an alternative to surgical treatment. This is especially viable if the tumor is voluminous, shows aggressive characteristics, and if the surgical management was deemed impossible or would sacrifice the surrounding dental or nervous components [5–7]. The disadvantages of medical treatment are treatment duration, its cost, as well as its undesirable effects. What is unique about this case of CGCG is its clinical presentation. Treatment was delayed despite the significant aesthetic involvement. Aesthetically speaking, the strictly surgical management of CGCG was satisfactory. The surrounding nerves and teeth were not injured and there was no recurrence at the 6-month follow-up. Nevertheless, a clinical and radiological check-up will be necessary for several years.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article

References

  1. Murphey MD, Nomikos GC, Flemming DJ, Gannon FH, Temple HT, Kransdorf MJ. Imaging of giant cell tumor and giant cell reparative granuloma of bone: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radio Graph 2001;21:1283–1309. [Google Scholar]
  2. de Lange J, van den Akker HP, Klip H. Incidence and disease-free survival after surgical therapy of CGCGs of the jaw in The Netherlands: 1990–1995. Head Neck 2004;26:792–795. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Whitaker SB, Waldron CA. Central giant cell lesions of the jaws. A clinical, radiologic, and histopathologic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;75:199–208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chuong R, Kaban LB, Kozakewich H, Perez-Atayde A. Central giant cell lesions of the jaws: a clinicopathologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;44:708–713. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Nogueira RLM, Teixeira RC, Cavalcante RB, Ribeiro RA, Rabenhosrt SHB. Intralesional injection of triamcinolone hexacetonide as an alternative treatment for central giant-cell granuloma in 21 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:1204–1210. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pogrel MA. Calcitonin therapy for central giant cell granuloma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:649–653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kaban LB, Troulis MJ, Wilkinson MS, Wilkinson MJ, Ebb D, Dodson TB. Adjuvant antiangiogenic therapy for giant cell tumors of the jaws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2018–2024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Front and profile preoperative photographs showing the chin deformation.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

Preoperative orthopantomogram and cone-beam computed tomography. Top: Orthopantomogram revealing an osteolytic lesion of the mandibular symphysis, with well-defined margins, flanked by teeth roots 33 and 43 on either side and linked to the root resorption of teeth 31 and 41. Bottom left: sagittal section CBCT focused on no. 31 (tooth rhizalysis). An osteolytic lesion with a thin bony wall can be observed. Bottom right: axial CBCT section focused on the roots of teeth 33 and 43.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

Left: vestibular layout. Right: lesion exposure (still surrounded by a thin bone film) after subperiosteal elevation.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

Left: surgical site after lesion enucleation. Right: showing the emergence of the two mental nerves.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5

Postoperative photographs of face from the front (top left) and profile (top right) one and a half months after surgery, showing the disappearance of the chin deformation.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6

Orthopantomogram 6 months after surgery. Ossification of the cavity left after enucleation.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.