4.2 Article

Myofibroblasts and mast cells: influences on biological behavior of odontogenic lesions

Journal

ANNALS OF DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue -, Pages 66-71

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.09.003

Keywords

Myofibroblasts; Mast cells; Dentigerous cyst; Odontogenic keratocysts; Ameloblastomas

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Odontogenic lesions differ in their rate of recurrence and aggressiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the presence of myofibroblasts and mast cells in odontogenic lesions. Sample consisted of 20 cases each of dentigerous cysts, odontogenic keratocysts, and solid ameloblastomas. Histologic sections were submitted to immunohistochemistry using anti-alpha-smooth muscle actin and anti-tryptase antibodies. Myofibroblasts and mast cells were counted at x400 magnification in 5 and 10 fields, respectively. Myofibroblasts were more frequent in ameloblastomas (24.41), followed by odontogenic keratocysts (16.21) and dentigerous cysts (11.85; P = .002). Granulated and degranulated mast cells were more frequent in dentigerous cysts (7.88 and 8.96, respectively), followed by odontogenic keratocysts (6.53 and 7.08) and ameloblastomas (5.21 and 1.88). The difference was only significant for degranulated mast cells (P < .05). Analysis of the correlation between myofibroblasts and mast cells (granulated and degranulated) revealed a moderate positive correlation only in ameloblastomas (R = 0.621, P = .003). Probably, myofibroblasts are related to the biological behavior of the odontogenic lesions studied, particularly their aggressiveness. On the other hand, mast cells seem to be associated with inflammatory processes, which are more frequent in cystic lesions than in benign neoplasms. In addition, mast cells may induce the differentiation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts, thus increasing the number of the latter. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available