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


 
  Table of Contents    
CASE REPORT - ODONTOGENIC AND FIBRO OSSEOUS LESIONS  
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 19-22
 

Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Adhiparasakthi Dental College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission09-Jul-2019
Date of Acceptance07-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication28-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
S Shamala Ravikumar
Department of Oral Pathology, Adhiparasakthi Dental College and Hospital, Melmaruvathur, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_209_19

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 


Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia (FCOD) is a benign fibro-osseous lesion of bone characterized by the replacement of normal bone by fibrous tissue and subsequently followed by its calcification with osseous and cementum-like material. It is mostly asymptomatic in nature and requires no treatment. When secondarily infected, it becomes symptomatic and intervention is required. Here, we report a case of symptomatic FCOD of mandible in a 52-year-old female patient. Histopathological evaluation of the biopsy specimen by ground sections and decalcified sections aided in the final diagnosis of the case.


Keywords: Cementum, decalcification, dysplasia, fibro-osseous, ground section


How to cite this article:
Ravikumar S S, Vasupradha G, Menaka T R, Sankar S P. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2020;24, Suppl S1:19-22

How to cite this URL:
Ravikumar S S, Vasupradha G, Menaka T R, Sankar S P. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 29];24, Suppl S1:19-22. Available from: http://www.jomfp.in/text.asp?2020/24/4/19/279760





   Introduction Top


Cemento-osseous dysplasia (COD) is a benign fibro-osseous lesion which encompasses three subgroups, namely periapical, focal and florid.[1] Periapical lesions are frequently found in association with the apex of vital mandibular anteriors. Focal variants are commonly found in the mandibular molar regions.[2] Florid lesions are multifocal in nature and involves both maxilla and mandible, commonly in the posterior region, and occasionally show bilaterally symmetrical distribution.[3]

Majority of these lesions are asymptomatic and are usually detected as an incidental finding in a radiograph and requires no treatment. Sometimes, when secondarily infected due to improper endodontic treatment or extraction of a tooth or any other cause, these lesions may become symptomtic, following which it has to be surgically excised.[4] Histopathological evaluation of these symptomatic lesions aid in the definitive diagnosis.

Here, we report a case of focal COD (FCOD) diagnosed in our institution. Although many literature are available on the clinical and radiographic details of the lesion, not much of information are available on the histological aspects, especially of the osseous and cementum-like areas comprising the lesion. This case report emphasizes the histological aspects of the calcified areas of the lesion with the help of ground sections and decalcified sections.


   Case Report Top


A 52-year-old female patient reported to our outpatient department with a chief complaint of pain in the back teeth region of the right lower jaw for the past 6 months. The patient underwent extraction of the lower right back tooth 2 years ago and developed pain in that region for the past 6 months. The pain was dull, intermittent, radiating in nature and relieved with medication. Intraoral examination revealed clinically missing 46 and the overlying mucosa appeared normal [Figure 1]. Orthopantamogram revealed a well-defined radiopaque mass measuring about 1.5 cm × 2 cm in the right mandible extending from the distal root of 45 to the mesial root of 47 [Figure 2]. On the basis of clinical and radiographic findings, a provisional diagnosis of complex odontoma was given.
Figure 1: Intraoral photograph showing clinically missing 46

Click here to view
Figure 2: Orthopantamogram showing a well-defined radiopaque mass in the right mandible region extending from the distal root of 45 to the mesial root of 47

Click here to view


Surgical excision of the lesion was done and 11 small fragments of hard-tissue specimen were submitted for histopathological evaluation [Figure 3]. The specimens were subjected to decalcification and ground section procedures.
Figure 3: Photograph showing macroscopic appearance of surgically excised specimen

Click here to view


Ground section was done by manual grinding method in two steps: first with rough carborundum stone till a section of 2–3 mm was obtained and then on static carborundum stone with hand till a thickness of 1 mm was obtained. Grinding was further done using fine carborundum stone till a section thickness of 0.25 mm was achieved. The ground section was then cleaned, dried and mounted on the slide using dibutylphthalate polystyrene xylene (DPX) and viewed under a microscope.[5]

Decalcification was done using 10% aqueous solution of formic acid, as it is gentler in action unlike nitric acid or hydrochloric acid and less likely to interfere with nuclear staining. After decalcification, extensive washing in tap water was done to remove residual acids from the specimen followed by the standard tissue processing and staining procedure.[6]

On microscopic examination, the ground section revealed large areas of tissue resembling bone with osteons and central Haversian canals [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Photomicrograph of ground section showing the presence of osteons with Haversian canals (low-power magnification)

Click here to view


The hematoxylin and eosin-stained decalcified sections revealed delicate fibrocellular connective tissue stroma with collagen fibers, spindle-shaped fibroblasts and numerous vascular spaces. Within the connective tissue stroma were seen numerous basophilic masses of material resembling bone with osteocytes and globules resembling cementum [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7].
Figure 5: Low-power magnification of H&E-stained decalcified section showing areas of bone and basophilic globular masses resembling cementum within a delicate fibrocellular connective tissue stroma.

Click here to view
Figure 6: High power magnification of H&E stained decalcified section showing bone with osteocytes within lacunae and delicate fibrocellular connective tissue stroma with vascular spaces

Click here to view
Figure 7: Low-power magnification of H&E-stained decalcified section showing the presence of basophilic globules of cementum, delicate fibrocellular connective tissue stroma with dispersed capillaries

Click here to view


Based on the histopathological findings and correlating with clinical and radiographic features, a final diagnosis of “Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia” was made.


   Discussion Top


Fibro-osseous lesions are benign entities possessing both fibrous and osseous components and include reactive, neoplastic and dysplastic processes. Focal osseous dysplasia, also known as FCOD, represents the most common benign fibro-osseous lesion.[7],[8] Waldron, observing its localized nature, first reported it as the “localized fibro-osseous-cemental lesion,” whereas Summerlin and Tomich renamed as “focal cemento-osseous dysplasia.”[9],[10]

The peak age of incidence is from third to fifth decade occurring commonly in female patients, especially the Africans-Americans.[11],[12] FCOD is usually asymptomatic, self-limiting reaching an average size of 1.5 cm. Mandible (86%) is the most frequent site of occurrence. It occurs commonly in regions of extractions. Local jaw expansion and mild discomfort may be reported in about one-third of the patients.[13]

Etiopathogenesis of FCOD remains still unclear and considered to be reactive or dysplastic lesion.[12] It is thought to be of periodontal ligament origin [7] or due to defect in extraligamentary bone remodeling influenced by local and systemic factors.[12]

Radiology has been of central importance to the detection of at least 64% of FCODs.[10] Ariji et al. first applied computed tomography (CT) to a COD series.[3] Modern cone-beam CT imaging has provided the dentist with the detailed three-dimensional extent of the lesion aiding in proper diagnosis.

FCOD is known to have three developmental stages. Radiographically, the early or osteolytic stage shows a well-defined radiolucent area with loss of periodontal ligament and lamina dura. Intermediate or cementoblastic stage shows small opacities which appear within the radiolucent area due to the deposition of cementum-like droplets in the fibrous tissue. Mature, osteosclerotic and “inactive” stage shows radiopacity, present in the major part of the lesion.[10]

In the present case, the lesion was detected radiographically in the extracted 46 region with pain as a presenting feature. The lesion was radiopaque with well-defined borders surrounded by radiolucent line, suggesting mature or osteosclerotic stage of FCOD or complex odontoma.

The diagnosis of asymptomatic FCOD is usually based on clinical and radiological features. The differential diagnosis of early stage of FCOD includes periapical granuloma or cyst and chronic osteomyelitis, whereas in the mixed and radiopaque stages, chronic focal sclerosing osteomyelitis, ossifying/cementifying fibroma, odontoma and osteoblastoma should be considered.[14]

Ossifying fibroma is usually encapsulated, which tends to separate clearly on surgical excision and removed in one large mass.[15] Microscopically, it shows delicate bony trabeculae with prominent osteoblastic rimming and shows intimate association with adjacent stroma.[11] As these findings could not be appreciated in the present case, ossifying fibroma was excluded from the differential diagnosis.

Cementoblastoma is usually seen attached to the tooth root and causes difficulty in extraction of the tooth. However, in the present case, the lesion was found in relation to missing 46 (previously extracted without difficulty); thus, cementoblastoma was ruled out.

Another radiographic differential diagnosis to be considered in the present case was the complex odontoma as it is most commonly seen in the mandibular posterior region as an amorphous hyperdense mass that does not resemble the teeth.[11] A definitive diagnosis can be obtained only after histopathological evaluation.

Another differential diagnosis that was considered was chronic focal sclerosing osteomyelitis, a primary inflammatory condition of the bone in response to a dental infection. The lesion is usually seen as a well-localized radiopaque mass of sclerotic bone in relation to the apex of the offending tooth.[11] However, in our case, the lesion was surrounded by a well-defined radiolucency unlike chronic focal sclerosing osteomyelitis where the radiopaque mass blends with the surrounding bone.

Histopathology of FCOD comprises highly cellular fibrovascular connective tissue interspersed with numerous islands of woven or lamellar bone and globular calcifications resembling cementum.[11],[12] Early lesions show more connective tissue stroma and mature lesions reveal large curvilinear bony trabeculae or lobular masses of cementum.[7],[12] The histopathology of the present case was that of a mature lesion with numerous bony trabeculae and globules of cementum.

Although a provisional diagnosis of complex odontoma was given, neither the ground section revealed the presence of enamel, dentin and cementum, nor the decalcified sections revealed dentin tubules and pulp tissue inclusions. Thus, a final diagnosis of focal cemento-osseous dysplasia was given.


   Conclusion Top


Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia is one of the most commonly encountered cemento-osseous dysplasias. Asymptomatic cases are often diagnosed as an incidental finding. Knowledge of clinical and radiographic features in conjunction with histopathology helps in definitive diagnosis. Treatment is not required unless symptomatic and prognosis is good.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Shah A, Modgill O, Patel V, Kwok J, Sproat C. Cemento-osseous dysplasia: To treat or not to treat?. J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2016;74:e60.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Salem YM, Osman YI, Norval EJ. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia: Review and a case report. SADJ 2010;65:422-3.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ariji Y, Ariji E, Higuchi Y, Kubo S, Nakayama E, Kanda S. Florid cemento-osseous dysplasia. Radiographic study with special emphasis on computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:391-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Min CK, Koh KJ, Kim KA. Recurrent symptomatic cemento-osseous dysplasia: A case report. Imaging Sci Dent 2018;48:131-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Singh A, Gorea RK, Singla U. Few tips for making ground sections of teeth for research purpose. J Punjab Acad Forensic Med Toxicol 2006;6:11-3.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Suvarna KS, Layton C, Bancroft JD. Bancroft's Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Summerlin DJ, Tomich CE. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia: A clinicopathologic study of 221 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:611-20.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gumusok M, Alkurt MT, Hamurcu K, Kilavuz DK, Baris E, Simsek B. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia. J Oral MaxillofacRadiol 2014;2:92-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Potochny EM, Huber AR. Focal osseous dysplasia. Head and neck pathol 2011;5:265-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Macdonald-Jankowski DS. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia: A systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:350-60.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Neville BW, Damm DD, Allen CM, Chi AC. Oral and maxillofacial pathology. Elsevier Health Sci 2015.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sivapathasundaram B. Shafer's Textbook of Oral Pathology. Elsevier India; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bhandari R, Sandhu SV, Bansal H, Behl R, Bhullar RK. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia masquerading as a residual cyst. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3:S60-2.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Drazić R, Minić AJ. Focal cemento-osseous dysplasia in the maxilla mimicking periapical granuloma. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:87-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Liu Y, Wang H, You M, Yang Z, Miao J, Shimizutani K, et al. Ossifying fibromas of the jaw bone: 20 cases. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:57-63.  Back to cited text no. 15
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
            

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Article in PDF (2,376 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Case Report
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed50    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

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