Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contact Us Login 
An Official Publication of the Indian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologists


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 54-59
Computer assisted histomorphologic comparision and the expression of AgNORs in the central and peripheral giant cell lesions of the oral cavity and giant cell tumor of the long bone


1 Department of Oral Pathology, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
3 Department of Oral Pathology, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Oral Pathology, P.M.N.M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Bina Kashyap
Department of Oral Pathology,Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh 534 202
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-029X.141350

Rights and Permissions

Objective: Computer-assisted image analysis was attempted to ascertain, if any of the previously described histologic features along with argyrophilic nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) could be used to determine the aggressiveness of the central giant cell granuloma of the jaws (CGCG), peripheral giant cell granuloma of the oral cavity (PGCG) and giant cell tumor of the long bones (GCT). Study Design: The study consisted of 20 cases of CGCG, 20 cases of PGCG and 5 cases of GCT. The histological features included were number of giant cells, number of nuclei in each giant cell, number of blood vessels, fractional surface area (FSA) and relative size index (RSI) of giant cells. The histologic parameters were measured using Motic image plus analyzer and AgNORs were evaluated using silver stain. Results: The statistical analysis showed significant differences among various histological parameters between CGCG, PGCG and GCT. A statistically significant difference was noted for the mean number of nuclei, FSA and RSI when GCT was compared with CGCG and PGCG. FSA of histologically aggressive central giant cell granuloma (HA-CGCG) was more compared to histologically non-aggressive central giant cell granuloma (HNA-CGCG). No statistical correlation was observed for AgNORs of multinucleated giant cells and mononuclear cells among CGCG, PGCG and GCT. Conclusion: Based on the present study findings, CGCG and GCT are distinct and separate entities and not a continuum of a single disease process. Histological parameters alone have a little implication on predicting clinical behavior of CGCG. AgNORs alone as a proliferative marker has a limited value in assessing the proliferation potential of giant cell lesions.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article  Email this article
    

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1551    
    Printed29    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded182    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th Aug, 2007