RESUMO
Oral mucosa serves as the primary barrier against pathogen invasions, mechanical stresses, and physical trauma. Although it is generally composed of keratinocytes and held in place by desmosomes, it shows variation in tissue elasticity and surface keratinization at different sites of the oral cavity. Wound healing undergoes four stages of tissue change sequences, namely haemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodelling. The wound healing of oral hard tissue and soft tissue is largely dependent on the inflammatory response and vascular response, which are the targets of many research. Because of a less-robust inflammatory response, favourable saliva properties, a unique oral environment, and the presence of mesenchymal stem cells, oral wounds are reported to demonstrate rapid healing, less scar formation, and fewer inflammatory reactions. However, delayed oral wound healing is a major concern in certain populations with autoimmune disorders or underlying medical issues, or those subjected to surgically inflicted injuries. Various means of approach have been adopted to improve wound tissue proliferation without causing excessive scarring. This narrative review reappraises the current literature on the use of light, sound, mechanical, biological, and chemical means to enhance oxygen delivery to wounds. The current literature includes the use of hyperbaric oxygen and topical oxygen therapy, ultrasounds, lasers, platelet-rich plasma (PRP)/platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and various chemical agents such as hyaluronic acid, astaxanthin, and Centella asiatica to promote angiogenesis in oral wound healing during the proliferation process. The arrival of a proprietary oral gel that is reported to improve oxygenation is highlighted.
RESUMO
Abstract Introduction Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was a new addition to the list of head and neck tumors by World Health Organization in 2017. This lesion has scarcely been reported and a lack of pathognomonic markers for diagnosis exists. Objective The aim of the study was to summarize findings from the available literature to provide up-to-date information on sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma and to analyse clinical, radiological, and histopathological features to obtain information for and against as an odontogenic malignancy. Methods We conducted a comprehensive review of literature by searching Pubmed, EBSCO and Web of Science databases, according to PRISMA guidelines. All the cases reported as sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma in English were included. Data retrieved from the articles were gender, age, clinical features, site, relevant medical history, radiographical findings, histopathological findings, immunohistochemical findings, treatments provided and prognosis. Results Mean age at diagnosis of sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was 54.4 years with a very slight female predilection. Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was commonly reported in the mandible as an expansile swelling which can be asymptomatic or associated with pain or paraesthesia. They appeared radiolucent with cortical resorption in radiograph evaluation. Histologically, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was composed of epithelioid cells in dense, fibrous, or sclerotic stroma with equivocal perineural invasion. Mild cellular atypia and inconspicuous mitotic activity were observed. There is no specific immunohistochemical marker for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. AE1/AE3, CK 5/6, CK 14, CK19, p63 and E-cadherin were the widely expressed markers for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. Surgical resection was the main treatment provided with no recurrence in most cases. No cases of metastasis were reported. Conclusion From the literature available, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma is justifiable as a malignant tumor with no or unknown metastatic potential which can be adequately treated with surgical resection. However, there is insufficient evidence for histological grading or degree of malignancy of this tumor.
Resumo Introdução O carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante é a nova adição à lista de tumores de cabeça e pescoço da Organização Mundial da Saúde em 2017. Essa lesão é pouco relatada e não há marcadores patognomônicos para o diagnóstico. Objetivo Resumir os achados da literatura disponível para fornecer informações atualizadas sobre o carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante e analisar as características clínicas, radiológicas e histopatológicas a favor e contra sua classificação como uma lesão odontogênica maligna. Método Uma revisão abrangente da literatura foi feita nos bancos de dados Pubmed, Ebsco e Web of Science, de acordo com as diretrizes do Prisma. Todos os casos relatados em inglês como carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante foram incluídos. Os dados recuperados dos artigos foram sexo, idade, características clínicas, sítio do tumor, histórico médico relevante, achados radiográficos, achados histopatológicos, achados imuno-histoquímico, tratamentos instituídos e prognóstico. Resultados A média de idade ao diagnóstico de carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante foi de 54,4 anos, com uma predileção muito leve pelo sexo feminino. Tumores do tipo carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante foram comumente relatados na mandíbula como um edema expansivo, que pode ser assintomático ou associado a dor ou parestesia. Eles têm aparência radiolucente com reabsorção cortical na radiografia. Histologicamente, o carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante é composto por células epitelioides em estroma denso, fibroso ou esclerótico com invasão perineural ambígua. Atipia celular leve e atividade mitótica imperceptível foram observadas. Não há um marcador imuno-histoquímico específico para SOC. AE1/AE3, CK 5/6, CK 14, CK19, p63 e E-caderina foram os marcadores amplamente expressos para carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante. A ressecção foi o principal tratamento feito sem recorrência na maioria dos casos. Nenhum caso de metástase foi relatado. Conclusão De acordo com a literatura disponível, é justificável classificar o carcinoma odontogênico esclerosante como um tumor maligno com nenhum ou desconhecido potencial metastático, que pode ser tratado adequadamente com ressecção cirúrgica. Entretanto, não há evidências suficientes para a graduação histológica ou de malignidade desse tumor.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was a new addition to the list of head and neck tumors by World Health Organization in 2017. This lesion has scarcely been reported and a lack of pathognomonic markers for diagnosis exists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to summarize findings from the available literature to provide up-to-date information on sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma and to analyse clinical, radiological, and histopathological features to obtain information for and against as an odontogenic malignancy. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of literature by searching Pubmed, EBSCO and Web of Science databases, according to PRISMA guidelines. All the cases reported as sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma in English were included. Data retrieved from the articles were gender, age, clinical features, site, relevant medical history, radiographical findings, histopathological findings, immunohistochemical findings, treatments provided and prognosis. RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis of sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was 54.4 years with a very slight female predilection. Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was commonly reported in the mandible as an expansile swelling which can be asymptomatic or associated with pain or paraesthesia. They appeared radiolucent with cortical resorption in radiograph evaluation. Histologically, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was composed of epithelioid cells in dense, fibrous, or sclerotic stroma with equivocal perineural invasion. Mild cellular atypia and inconspicuous mitotic activity were observed. There is no specific immunohistochemical marker for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. AE1/AE3, CK 5/6, CK 14, CK19, p63 and E-cadherin were the widely expressed markers for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. Surgical resection was the main treatment provided with no recurrence in most cases. No cases of metastasis were reported. CONCLUSION: From the literature available, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma is justifiable as a malignant tumor with no or unknown metastatic potential which can be adequately treated with surgical resection. However, there is insufficient evidence for histological grading or degree of malignancy of this tumor.