Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery
An open access publication of Association of Plastic Surgeons of India
Users Online: 147  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
  Navigate Here 
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

 Resource Links
 »   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
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2018  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 208--215

Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted?

1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijps.IJPS_194_17

Rights and Permissions

Context: The term giant mandibular ameloblastoma (GMAs) while being in popular usage in the medical literature remains largely equivocal. Although a few authors have in the past attempted to ascribe definite criteria to this entity, these are by and large arbitrary and without any benefit in decision-making or contributing to its management. Aims: The aim of this study is to propose a set of objective criteria for GMAs that can be clinically correlated and thereby aid in the management of this entity. Patients and Methods: Of a total of 16 patients with ameloblastoma of the mandible presenting at our institute from August 2012 to September 2016, 11 patients were identified as having GMAs as per the criteria proposed. Results: The defects in the mandible following segmental resection ranged from 7 to 11.5 cm in length (mean: 9.3 cm). No clinical or radiological evidence of tumour recurrence was found during a mean follow-up period of 10.7 months (range: 2–28 months). Conclusions: Defining GMA based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria allows segregation of these lesions, thereby helping to remove ambiguity, simplify decision-making and facilitate communication among treating reconstructive surgeons. Inclusion criteria include: (i) The segmental bone defect following resection with a minimum 1 cm margin of healthy bone should exceed 6 cm (ii) The segmental bone defect should involve the central mandibular segment.


Print this article     Email this article

Site Map  |  Home  |  Contact Us  |  Feedback  |  Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 11th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow