The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fumio Ide - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions from thoma to gorlin
Head and Neck Pathology, 2015Co-Authors: Fumio Ide, Ichiro Saito, Kentaro Kikuchi, Yuji Miyazaki, Kaoru Kusama, Takashi MuramatsuAbstract:To reappraise the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions (OGCL), the extensive world literature published from 1838 to 1962 was reviewed. In light of the long history of OGCL, the term “calcifying epithelioma of Malherbe” first appeared in a 1931 French report, and the term “Ghost Cells” had its origin in two American seminal articles by Thoma and Goldman in 1946. Although Gorlin et al. coined the term “calcifying odontogenic cyst” (COC) in 1962, this type of cyst was initially reported three decades earlier by Rywkind in Russia, and almost concurrently by Blood good in the United States and Sato in Japan. In 1948, Willis provided the initial histological evidence of a peripheral COC in his British pathology textbook. Credit for the earliest clinical presentation of odontoma associated calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor belongs to the American radiology textbook by Thoma in 1917. A Scandinavian journal report published in 1953 by Husted and Pindborg was the first to address a dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor, and its peripheral counterpart was originally reported in the Swiss literature 7 years later. The current concept of COC was undoubtedly established by Gorlin et al. but the history of OGCL really started with Thoma’s pioneering work about a century ago.
-
ameloblastoma ex calcifying odontogenic cyst dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Fumio Ide, Kumi Obara, Kenji Mishima, Ichiro SaitoAbstract:Calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC) has shown to be of extensive diversity in its clinical and histopathological features, as well as in its biological behavior. In this report, a rare case is described of ameloblastoma ex COC (dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor) and the relevant literature is briefly reviewed.
Ichiro Saito - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions from thoma to gorlin
Head and Neck Pathology, 2015Co-Authors: Fumio Ide, Ichiro Saito, Kentaro Kikuchi, Yuji Miyazaki, Kaoru Kusama, Takashi MuramatsuAbstract:To reappraise the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions (OGCL), the extensive world literature published from 1838 to 1962 was reviewed. In light of the long history of OGCL, the term “calcifying epithelioma of Malherbe” first appeared in a 1931 French report, and the term “Ghost Cells” had its origin in two American seminal articles by Thoma and Goldman in 1946. Although Gorlin et al. coined the term “calcifying odontogenic cyst” (COC) in 1962, this type of cyst was initially reported three decades earlier by Rywkind in Russia, and almost concurrently by Blood good in the United States and Sato in Japan. In 1948, Willis provided the initial histological evidence of a peripheral COC in his British pathology textbook. Credit for the earliest clinical presentation of odontoma associated calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor belongs to the American radiology textbook by Thoma in 1917. A Scandinavian journal report published in 1953 by Husted and Pindborg was the first to address a dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor, and its peripheral counterpart was originally reported in the Swiss literature 7 years later. The current concept of COC was undoubtedly established by Gorlin et al. but the history of OGCL really started with Thoma’s pioneering work about a century ago.
-
ameloblastoma ex calcifying odontogenic cyst dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Fumio Ide, Kumi Obara, Kenji Mishima, Ichiro SaitoAbstract:Calcifying odontogenic cyst (COC) has shown to be of extensive diversity in its clinical and histopathological features, as well as in its biological behavior. In this report, a rare case is described of ameloblastoma ex COC (dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor) and the relevant literature is briefly reviewed.
Elias Romero De Leon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
international collaborative study on Ghost Cell odontogenic tumours calcifying cystic odontogenic tumour dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumour and Ghost Cell odontogenic carcinoma
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, 2008Co-Authors: Constantino Ledesmamontes, Robert J Gorlin, Mervyn Shear, Finn Prae Torius, Adalberto Mosquedataylor, Mario Altini, Krishnan Unni, Oslei Paes De Almeida, Roman Carlosbregni, Elias Romero De LeonAbstract:Background: Calcifying odontogenic cyst was described first by Gorlin et al. in 1962; since then several hundreds of cases had been reported. In 1981, Praetorius et al. proposed a widely used classification. Afterwards, several authors proposed different classifications and discussed its neoplastic potential. The 2005 WHO Classification of Odontogenic Tumours re-named this entity as calcifying cystic odontogenic tumour (CCOT) and defined the clinico-pathological features of the Ghost Cell odontogenic tumours, the CCOT, the dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumour (DGCT) and the Ghost Cell odontogenic carcinoma (GCOC). Methods: The aim of this paper was to review the clinical-pathological features of 122 CCOT, DGCT and GCOC cases retrieved from the files of the oral pathology laboratories from 14 institutions in Mexico, South Africa, Denmark, the USA, Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. It attempts to clarify and to group the clinico-pathological features of the analysed cases and to propose an objective, comprehensive and useful classification under the 2005 WHO classification guidelines. Results: CCOT cases were divided into four sub-types: (i) simple cystic; (ii) odontoma associated; (iii) ameloblastomatous proliferating; and (iv) CCOT associated with benign odontogenic tumours other than odontomas. DGCT was separated into a central aggressive DGCT and a peripheral non-aggressive counterpart. For GCOC, three variants were identified. The first reported cases of a recurrent peripheral CCOT and a multiple synchronous, CCOT are included. Conclusions: Our results suggest that Ghost Cell odontogenic tumours comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms which need further studies to define more precisely their biological behaviour.
Takashi Muramatsu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions from thoma to gorlin
Head and Neck Pathology, 2015Co-Authors: Fumio Ide, Ichiro Saito, Kentaro Kikuchi, Yuji Miyazaki, Kaoru Kusama, Takashi MuramatsuAbstract:To reappraise the early history of odontogenic Ghost Cell lesions (OGCL), the extensive world literature published from 1838 to 1962 was reviewed. In light of the long history of OGCL, the term “calcifying epithelioma of Malherbe” first appeared in a 1931 French report, and the term “Ghost Cells” had its origin in two American seminal articles by Thoma and Goldman in 1946. Although Gorlin et al. coined the term “calcifying odontogenic cyst” (COC) in 1962, this type of cyst was initially reported three decades earlier by Rywkind in Russia, and almost concurrently by Blood good in the United States and Sato in Japan. In 1948, Willis provided the initial histological evidence of a peripheral COC in his British pathology textbook. Credit for the earliest clinical presentation of odontoma associated calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor belongs to the American radiology textbook by Thoma in 1917. A Scandinavian journal report published in 1953 by Husted and Pindborg was the first to address a dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor, and its peripheral counterpart was originally reported in the Swiss literature 7 years later. The current concept of COC was undoubtedly established by Gorlin et al. but the history of OGCL really started with Thoma’s pioneering work about a century ago.
Adriano Piattelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
peripheral dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor of the gingiva
Journal of Periodontology, 2007Co-Authors: Giovanna Iezzi, Corrado Rubini, Massimiliano Fioroni, Adriano PiattelliAbstract:Background: A dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor is a locally invasive neoplasm that is characterized by ameloblastoma-like islands of epithelial Cells in a mature connective tissue stroma.Methods: A 43-year-old male patient presented a well-circumscribed sessile, exophytic mass of the gingiva with a diameter of 2 cm located in the canine area of the right maxilla. The lesion was enucleated.Results: The lesion showed odontogenic epithelium, Ghost Cells, dentinoid material, and giant Cells. The final microscopic diagnosis was a dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor.Conclusions: A dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumor is an extremely rare tumor, and only a few cases have been reported in the English literature. The peripheral, extraosseous lesion can be easily confused with other gingival lesions such as reactive or inflammatory lesions or other peripheral odontogenic tumors. The clinical appearance of all of these lesions is similar; therefore, the definitive diagnosis depends on histology, and a biopsy with a microscopic exam...
-
immunohistochemical analysis of a dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumour
Oral Oncology, 1998Co-Authors: Adriano Piattelli, Massimiliano Fioroni, L Di Alberti, Corrado RubiniAbstract:A dentinogenic Ghost Cell tumour in an 80-year-old male patient is presented. It is an extremely rare tumour and only 10 cases have been reported in the English literature. The lesion showed odontogenic epithelium, Ghost Cells, dentinoid, giant Cells. The immunohistochemical analysis for Mib-1 and bel-2 showed a strong positivity of the Cells of the odontogenic epithelium, while with p53 only a rare positivity was observed. Completely negative were the Ghost Cells, giant Cells and dentinoid material. In this tumour the Cells expressing Mib-1 and bcl-2 could be the Cells that proliferate, and that could undergo malignant transformation.