EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 25 / No 4 (2019) J Oral Med Oral Surg, 25 4 (2019) 37 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 25, Number 4, 2019
Article Number 37
Number of page(s) 5
Section Cas clinique / Short case report
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2019018
Published online 08 October 2019

© The authors, 2019

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.

Introduction

An impacted tooth is a definitive tooth whose root has formed completely but whose crown has not erupted [1]. The causes of impacted teeth, among others hereditary factors, include dysfunction of some endocrine glands; mechanical obstacles such as vestibuloversion of the mandibular incisors, fracture of the mandible near the site of canine eruption, premature loss of deciduous canines, or abnormal shape of adjacent teeth; and/or tumoral pathologies such as odontomas or cysts [1–4].

Ossifying fibromas (OF) are benign tumors that mainly affect the bones of the face. They are a type of benign facial fibro-osseous lesions (FOBLs) [5]. According to Brannon et al. (2001), these lesions are divided into three categories according to their origin: neoplastic lesion (OF), dysplastic lesion, the origin of which would probably be the alveolar–dental ligament (bone dysplasia), and developmental lesion (fibrous dysplasia) [6,7]. Ossifying fibromas can be of three types: ossifying fibromas (OF), juvenile trabecular ossifying fibromas (JTOF), or juvenile psammomatoid ossifying fibromas (JPOF).

This article analyzes the case of an impacted mandibular canine because of its association with JTOF along with a radiological follow-up over 4 years.

Clinical case

An 11-year-old girl was referred by the Orthodontic Department, where she had been followed up for 3 years for a dentomaxillary disharmony, to extract the impacted left mandibular canine. Her medical history included hexadactyly, precocious puberty in the context of sustained obesity, treatment with triptorelin 3.75 mg (Gonapeptyl LP® 3.75 mg every 4 weeks), and multiple fractures (left foot and right ankle).

On orthopantomography (OPT), the left mandibular canine was almost horizontal, and its crown was superimposed on the roots of the mandibular incisors, with a poorly defined radiolucent image surrounding the crown and extending distally between the lateral incisor and the first left mandibular premolar (Fig. 1). Examination of previous orthopantomograms showed that the lesion had always been present and had changed little over 3 years. The left mandibular canine already had a more mesial position and a more pronounced coronomesial version than the contralateral mandibular canine 3 years ago. These abnormalities became more pronounced over time, probably because the lesion was an obstacle to the normal eruption of the tooth (Fig. 2).

Cone beam computed tomography was performed to determine the association between the tooth and other adjacent anatomical structures (Fig. 3). The tooth was placed buccaly to the mandibular incisors. The radiolucent image showed two aspects: A radiolucent lesion at the canine crown and ground glass opacity; the margins were clear, and there was no damage to adjacent anatomical structures.

Orthodontic treatment of interception included the extraction of the temporary teeth and the installation of a space maintainer (lingual arch) to allow its eruption, which never occurred. Orthodontic surgical traction carried a great risk of causing root lesions on the mandibular incisors. Thus, it was decided to extract the canine under local anesthesia. This was part of an overall treatment plan for the extraction of the maxillary second premolars and the right second mandibular premolar.

Once the tooth was extracted, an exploration of the distal lesion was performed; it showed a wet sandy appearance and was well defined; curettage was easy with a well-defined cleavage plane (Fig. 4). Following curettage, a macroscopically healthy bone was found, with a well-individualized cortex.

Anatomopathological examination showed neoformed masses and anastomosed bones sometimes surrounded by osteoblasts, which were separated by a moderately cellular fibrous tissue, leading to the diagnosis of OF (Fig. 5). OFs can be of three different types, and postoperative monitoring differs according to the type. Although slow lesion growth is a confounding factor, JTOFs grow rapidly and are sometimes aggressive. In consultation with the pathology team, after rereading the sections, and based on clinical presentation (slow growth, tooth displacement, unencapsulated lesion, and osteoid trabeculae), the diagnosis of JTOF was confirmed.

Eighteen months after the procedure, the patient showed no signs of a recurrence. A 5-year follow-up was instituted to monitor recurrence.

thumbnail Fig. 1

OPT showing the impacted canine and the radiolucent lesion.
thumbnail Fig. 2

(A) Intraoral photograph during the intervention showing the left mandibular canine position. (B) Intraoral photograph showing the closeness of the root apex to the canine. The arrow indicates the bony cleavage plane of the lesion.
thumbnail Fig. 3

(A) Axial section showing the radiolucent lesion between 32 and 34. (B) Reconstruction showing the proximity of the tooth crown to the mandibular incisors root apex. Two aspects of the lesion can be seen: the part enclosing the tooth crown appearing radiolucent and a distal extension with ground glass opacity.
thumbnail Fig. 4

Histological section showing osteoid trabeculae (H&E, ×40).
thumbnail Fig. 5

OPT taken 3 (A), 2 (B), and 1.5 (C) years before surgery.

Discussion

BFOL of the craniofacial region can form several types of lesions that are very similar to each other from a histological, clinical, and radiological point of view: fibrous dysplasias, bone dysplasias, and OF. These pathologies result in the replacement of the normal bone of the fibrous connective tissue, forming varying amounts of osteoid, bone, or cement-like calcifications [5,6].

These three types of lesions, which are histologically similar, are differentiated based on clinical, radiographic, and histological findings [6,7]. Patients' age, their ethnic origin, and the sites affected by the lesion are important for establishing the diagnosis [6,8].

In the present case, anatomopathological examination indicated OF, but a specific type was not determined. In fact, there are three types of OFs whose different clinical and radiological characteristics are described in Table I.

Table I

Comparison of different types of ossifying fibromas, after Zegali et al. (2015) [13].

OF usually occurs between the age of 20–30 years. Women are more frequently affected than men, as are Caucasian patients, followed by patients of African descent. The posterior mandibular regions are the most affected sites.

The origin of OFs is not unanimous; while the World Health Organization considers it to be a fibro-osseous neoplasm, others consider it to be an odontogenic tumor [5,9]. Often, it evolves aggressively but slowly, is asymptomatic, and is discovered accidently. Its size at the time of discovery varies greatly (1–5 cm) [6,10]. Typically, the adjacent structures move as the lesion grows (teeth and inferior alveolar nerve). Radiologically, it presents as a unilocular lesion, well demarcated from the surrounding bone, in majority of the cases. A fibrous capsule around the lesion is usually found during excision [6,8,11].

Juvenile OFs (JOFs) are fibro-osseous tumors that are rarer and more aggressive than OF. The distinction with JOF and OF is sometimes challenging because of their clinical, radiological, and microscopic similarities [7,12]. They exhibit rapid growth, sometimes growing to large sizes. Radiologically, JOF is also well delimited, but unlike OF, it lacks radioclear peripheral borders (non-encapsulated tumors) [6,8].

There are two histological types of JOF: JPOF and JTOF. JPOF essentially affects the bones of the orbits and the paranasal sinuses, and the pathological aspect is not similar to that found in the presented case (presence of fusiform fibroblast cells and psammomatoid calcifications) [6]. JTOF most often affects children between 8 and 12 years of age, with a male predominance. The maxillary bone is the most frequently affected site [6,9]. Microscopically, it is rich in fibrous tissues and osteoid deposits and shows trabecular bone surrounded by rounded osteoblasts.

In the present case, the lesion grew slowly, did not involve any encapsulation, and showed osteoid trabeculations on anatomopathological examination. Thus, the diagnosis of JTOF was made, although it did not evolve aggressively similar to most lesions. Similarly, Brannon et al. (2001) have reported that this type of lesion does not always behave aggressively, which is consistent with the present report [7].

OF treatment involves curettage in the context of small lesions and radical excision (marginal or segmental resection) in case of very large, debilitating, or rapidly evolving lesions [14–16]. These lesions show a very high rate of recurrence (30%–58%) [13,14,16]. Clinical and radiological monitoring is essential.

Although one case of an impacted canine resulting from OF has already been reported in the literature [17], this case is the first to show the direct cause–effect relationship between an impacted canine and OF.

It is very important to make a precise diagnosis of different FOBLs. Although they are histopathologically similar, their evolution and management varies greatly depending on the pathology. All OFs require resection because of their neoplastic nature [6,8]. OD, including periapical bone dysplasia, focal bone dysplasia, and florid bone dysplasia, does not require treatment; however, annual monitoring is essential. In fact, periapical and focal bone dysplasias may progress to florid oral bone dysplasia, which may undergo sarcomatous transformation in very rare cases [6].

In the case of fibrous dysplasia affecting the jaws, the treatment approach should be modulated according to patient age, lesion size, and lesion growth rate. Often, aesthetic concerns determine the course of action, ranging from simple clinical and radiological monitoring to osteotomies for modifying bone surfaces. Long-term monitoring is necessary because of the risk of sarcomatous transformation [8,18].

Conclusion

This article details the case of an impacted canine related to JTOF that was present for several years. The diagnosis of these lesions is difficult because of their clinical, radiological, histological similarities with other FOBLs or OFs. The establishment of a precise diagnosis is essential to determine the course of action, which varies greatly depending on the type of lesion. These are rare, frequently recurrent lesions; thus, close monitoring should be performed over several years.

Conflicts of interests

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

References

  1. Dalessandri D, Parrini S, Rubiano R, Gallone D, Migliorati M. Impacted and transmigrant mandibular canines incidence, aetiology, and treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:161–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Yavuz MS, Aras MH, Büyükkurt MC, Tozoglu S. Impacted mandibular canines. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:78–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aras M-H, Halicioğlu K, Yavuz M-S, Çağlaroğlu M. Evaluation of surgical-orthodontic treatments on impacted mandibular canines. Med Oral Patol Oral Cirugia Bucal 2011;16: e925–e928. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Sajnani AK, King NM. Impacted mandibular canines: prevalence and characteristic features in southern Chinese children and adolescents. J Dent Child Chic Ill 2014;81:3–6. [Google Scholar]
  5. El-Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours 4th Edition. 4th éd. IARC; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mainville GN, Turgeon DP, Kauzman A. Diagnosis and management of benign fibro-osseous lesions of the jaws: a current review for the dental clinician. Oral Dis 2017;23:440–450. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brannon RB, Fowler CB. Benign fibro-osseous lesions: a review of current concepts. Adv Anat Pathol 2001;8:126–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. MacDonald DS. Maxillofacial fibro-osseous lesions. Clin Radiol 2015;70:25–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Slootweg PS, El Mofty SK. Ossifying Fibroma. In: Barnes L, Eveson JW, Reichart P, Sidransky D. Wolrd Health Organization classification of tumours Pathology and genetics of head and neck tumours. Lyon: LIARC Press 2005. pp. 319–320. [Google Scholar]
  10. Eversole LR, Leider AS, Nelson K. Ossifying fibroma: a clinicopathologic study of sixty-four cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;60:505–511. [Google Scholar]
  11. MacDonald-Jankowski D. Ossifying fibroma: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2009;38:495–513. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Urs AB, Kumar P, Arora S, Augustine J. Clinicopathologic and radiologic correlation of ossifying fibroma and juvenile ossifying fibroma—an institutional study of 22 cases. Ann Diagn Pathol 2013;17:198–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zegalie N, Speight PM, Martin L. Ossifying fibromas of the jaws and craniofacial bones. Diagn Histopathol 2015;21: 351–358. [Google Scholar]
  14. El-Mofty SK. Fibro-osseous lesions of the craniofacial skeleton: an update. Head Neck Pathol 2014;8:432–444. [Google Scholar]
  15. Toro C, Millesi W, Zerman N, Robiony M, Politi M. A case of aggressive ossifying fibroma with massive involvement of the mandible: differential diagnosis and management options. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Extra 2006;1:167–172. [Google Scholar]
  16. Han J, Hu L, Zhang C, Yang X, Tian Z, Wang Y, et al. Juvenile ossifying fibroma of the jaw: a retrospective study of 15 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45:368–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hentati H, Njim L, Fehri M-M., Zakhama A, Selmi J. Fibrome ossifiant mandibulaire associé à une canine incluse. Médecine Buccale Chir Buccale 2013;19:127–130. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheng J, Yu H, Wang D, Ye J, Jiang H, Wu Y, et al. Spontaneous malignant transformation in craniomaxillofacial fibrous dysplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:141–145. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table I

Comparison of different types of ossifying fibromas, after Zegali et al. (2015) [13].

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

OPT showing the impacted canine and the radiolucent lesion.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

(A) Intraoral photograph during the intervention showing the left mandibular canine position. (B) Intraoral photograph showing the closeness of the root apex to the canine. The arrow indicates the bony cleavage plane of the lesion.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

(A) Axial section showing the radiolucent lesion between 32 and 34. (B) Reconstruction showing the proximity of the tooth crown to the mandibular incisors root apex. Two aspects of the lesion can be seen: the part enclosing the tooth crown appearing radiolucent and a distal extension with ground glass opacity.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

Histological section showing osteoid trabeculae (H&E, ×40).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5

OPT taken 3 (A), 2 (B), and 1.5 (C) years before surgery.
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.