Open Access
Issue
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 27, Number 1, 2021
Article Number 12
Number of page(s) 3
Section Cas clinique / Short case report
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2020054
Published online 08 December 2020

© The authors, 2020

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

Observation

A 28-year-old woman consulted for a painful oral swelling. There was nothing relevant in her medical history. She undergone the removal of 3rd molars under general anaesthesia a year earlier.

She reported the occurrence in the posterior mandibular region of a rapidly growing tumour without remembering starting period of the swelling. It became painful a week earlier (visual analogue scale for pain, VAS = 10/10 the day of visit).

The extra-oral examination found a firm swelling in the posterior mandibular region with a moderate trismus and without lymphadenopathies.

The intra-oral examination found a 3.5 cm tumour behind the mandibular right 2nd molar which was partially covered with the tumour (Fig. 1). A gingival suppuration was present. The tumour was covered with a whitish mucosa and had a firm consistency.

The panoramic X-Ray showed a circular, well limited unilocular radiolucent lesion behind the mandibular right 2nd molar with on its lower border a 2 mm radio-opaque image compatible with a residual dental apex (Fig. 2).

Diagnostic hypothesis was dental cellulitis caused by a residual cyst after 3rd molar removal. The initial treatment consisted of antibiotics, analgesics and antiseptic mouth washes for 6 days.

The blood test found microcytic anaemia, hyperleukocytosis and high level of C-reactive protein. Parathyroid hormone, calcium and phosphate levels as well as creatinine clearance were normal, so primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism was excluded.

CBCT showed a 22 × 14 × 16 mm unilocular lesion in contact with the inferior alveolar nerve. The lingual cortical plate was perforated and the vestibular one was thinned.

After 1 week, no significant improvement was observed. Other diagnoses were then evoked among which a keratocyst, an amelobastoma, a myxoma, an aneurismal bone cyst (ABC), a giant cell tumour (GCT) or a central giant cell granuloma (CGCG).

The exeresis of the tumour along with the removal of the residual apex were performed under local anaesthesia.

Histological examination found a great number of multinucleated giant-cells (Fig. 3) but was unable to distinguish between peripheral GCG, CGCG or GCT.

The patient was lost of view for 4 months until the recurrence of the lesion. She presented a 2.5 cm, bleeding on touch, painful gingival tumour behind the mandibular right 2nd molar. Submandibular lymphadenopathies were found.

A new CBCT showed an extensive unilocular radiolucent lesion of 40 mm located in the mandibular angle and ramus, perforating the buccal and lingual cortices and the lower rim of the mandible, and invading the soft tissues (Fig. 4).

Because of the rapid and aggressive recurrence, decision has been made to realise a mandibular resection with 5 mm margin; the mandible was reconstructed with a titanium plate.

Histological examination showed numerous osteoclastic-like multinucleated giant cells, uniformly distributed within a stroma of mononucleated and spindle-shaped cells grouped in islets around haemorrhagic suffusion sites. The diagnosis of giant cell tumour was made, without being able to differentiate between a CGCG or a true GCT. Complementary immunochemical and genetic analyses (searching for G34W mutation of histone H3.3 and USP6 gene rearrangement) have been performed. Both results were negative. The diagnosis retained was that of a CGCG.

No recurrence appeared in the 4-year follow-up.

A secondary reconstruction of the mandible by free fibula flap was refused by the patient because of pregnancies during the follow-up.

thumbnail Fig. 1

Gingival large tumour partially covering the mandibular right 2nd molar.

thumbnail Fig. 2

Orthopantomography performed at the first visit showing an unilocular, well-delimited, radiolucent lesion behind the mandibular right 2nd molar and a residual apex of the 3rd molar.

thumbnail Fig. 3

Histological slide coloured with hematein eosin safran (HES) (magnification ×40) showing numerous multinucleated giant cells (black arrow).

thumbnail Fig. 4

Axial and coronal CBCT slides showing the tumour extension with cortices perforation.

Comments

The CGCG is a rare benign tumour of the bone (incidence 1.1 per 106) [1]. The CGCG develops more frequently in women and 60% of patients are aged under 30; 65% of the cases occur in the mandible [1].

One possible aetiology of CGCG could be an excessive healing process after an endo-osseous trauma. In the reported case, the removal of the 3rd molar one year earlier may support this hypothesis.

The growth of the tumour is often slow and asymptomatic, but teeth displacements, root resorptions and cortical perforations are sometimes observed [1].

Histological examinations alone are sometimes not able to differentiate between CGCG and GCT. Few studies reported diagnostic difficulties and the use of complementary diagnostic techniques such as immunofluorescence or immunohistochemistry to distinguish CGCG from osteosarcoma or other giant cell tumours such as GCT or ABC [2]. In our case, such tests were necessary − in addition to two anatomopathological examinations − to reach the final diagnosis.

CGCG are classified in aggressive and non-aggressive types [3]. Aggressive lesions are characterised by at least three of the following clinical features: size superior to 5 cm, root resorption, tooth displacement, rapid growth, cortical perforation and high recurrence rate after curettage [3]. The global recurrence rate varies between 11 and 49% after surgical treatment [1], but could rise to 70% after curettage or enucleation of an aggressive type [4]. Some histological aspects such as the number of multinucleated cells, their volume and the number of nuclei seem to be correlated to the aggressiveness of the CGCG [3].

The treatment modalities described in the literature vary widely depending on the size and aggressiveness of the tumour.

For non-aggressive types, simple curettage seems sufficient, but in aggressive types the high recurrence rate does not allow this treatment [1]. Resection with >5 mm margin limits the recurrence rate to 6%, comparing with the 72% rate observed after curettage [3].

Alternative pharmacological treatments acting on the tumour proliferation (i.e., intralesional injection of corticosteroid, calcitonin, interferon alpha, denosumab, imatinib…) are proposed alone or combined with a surgical treatment, in order to limit the functional impact of extensive surgeries in the often-young patients with CGCG [1]. These treatments seem effective on non-aggressive types but are rarely enough to obtain complete healing on aggressive tumours that often require complementary surgery [1].

In the literature, tumour resection is the first-line treatment for aggressive CGCG [2,4,5]. Tosco et al. reported the management of 18 cases of CGCG of which 11 were aggressive types. Their treatment consisted in a 5 mm margin en-bloc resection. No recurrence was observed after a 18-month follow-up [4].

Similar to our case report, two publications reported two cases of CGCG treated with segmental mandibulectomy and immediate reconstruction with a titanium plate [2,5].Yadav et al. performed a segmental resection after 2 recurrences of an aggressive CGCG located in the ramus that invaded the nearby soft tissues [5]. Wang et al. performed the same surgery in a child with an aggressive CGCG located in the mandibular ramus and condyle that recurred rapidly after enucleation [2].

In the present case, the very aggressive type of tumour in this young patient and the lack of compliance for follow-up oriented us towards a radical treatment of the recurrence. The decision of immediate reconstruction with a titanium plate rather than a free fibula flap was justified by the risk of recurrence and the opposition of the patient.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. de Lange J, van den Akker HP, van den Berg H. Central giant cell granuloma of the jaw: a review of the literature with emphasis on therapy options. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2007;104:603–615. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Wang Y, Le A, El Demellawy D, Shago M, Odell M, Johnson-Obaseki S. An aggressive central giant cell granuloma in a pediatric patient: case report and review of literature. J Otolaryngol − Head Neck Surg 2019;48:32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Tosco P, Tanteri G, Iaquinta C, Fasolis M, Roccia F, Sid Berrone, et al. Surgical treatment and reconstruction for central giant cell granuloma of the jaws: a review of 18 cases. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2009;37:380–387. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Yadav S, Singh A, Kumar P, Tyagi S. Recurrent case of central giant cell granuloma with multiple soft tissue involvement. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2014;5:60–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Gingival large tumour partially covering the mandibular right 2nd molar.

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

Orthopantomography performed at the first visit showing an unilocular, well-delimited, radiolucent lesion behind the mandibular right 2nd molar and a residual apex of the 3rd molar.

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

Histological slide coloured with hematein eosin safran (HES) (magnification ×40) showing numerous multinucleated giant cells (black arrow).

In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

Axial and coronal CBCT slides showing the tumour extension with cortices perforation.

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.