Ó 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard
All rights reserved
Ameloblastomas: a regional Latin-American multicentric
C Ledesma-Montes1, A Mosqueda-Taylor2, R Carlos-Bregni3, E Romero de Leon4, JM Palma-Guzman5,
´ ez-Valencia6,A Meneses-Garcı´ a7
Oral Pathology Laboratory, Facultad de Odontologı´a, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Me´xico, D.F. Me´xico;
Departamento de Atencio´n a la Salud, Universidad Auto´noma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Me´xico, D.F. Me´xico; 3Centro de
´lvez, Guatemala City,
Medicina Oral, Posgrado de Patologı´a y Medicina Oral, Facultad de Odontologı´a, Universidad MarianoGa
Guatemala; 4Oral Pathology Laboratory, Facultad de Odontologı´a, Universidad Auto´noma de Nuevo Leo´n, Monterrey, N.L. Me´xico;
Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Diagnosis Service, Facultad de Estomatologı´a, Universidad Auto´noma de Puebla, Puebla, Pue,
Me´xico; 6Anatomic Pathology Department, Hospital 20 de Noviembre, Me´xico, D.F. Me´xico; 7Pathology Department, Instituto
Nacional deCancerologı´a, Me´xico, D.F. Me´xico
AIM: To classify 163 ameloblastoma cases according to
the new WHO Classiﬁcation of Odontogenic Tumours
(2005) and analyse their clinical and microscopic features.
METHODS: We studied the clinico-pathological features
of 163 ameloblastoma cases from nine regional LatinAmerican institutions from Mexico and Guatemala.
RESULTS: Ameloblastomas comprised22.7% of all
odontogenic tumours. The mean age was 41.4 years for
solid ameloblastoma (SA) and 26.3 years for unicystic
ameloblastoma (UA) (P < 0.001) and both sexes were
almost equally affected. The mandible was mainly affected for both UA and SA. The mean size was 6.2 cm for
SA and 6.3 cm for UA cases. The recurrence rate was
21.7% for SA and 12.6% for UA. UA was twice as more
frequent thanthe solid variant.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that UA was
frequently misdiagnosed as SA; however, there are enough clinical and microscopic features that allow for an
accurate differentiation between both types of ameloblastoma that should be recognized for surgical and
prognostic purposes. In this study, SA was not found in
patients younger than 20 years, UA had a constant
myxoidstroma while mature connective tissue was more
frequently associated with the solid type.
Oral Diseases (2007) 13, 303–307
Keywords: odontogenic tumours; ameloblastoma; solid ameloblastoma; unicystic ameloblastoma; mandibular tumours; maxillary
Correspondence: Dr Constantino Ledesma-Montes, Apartado Postal
#86-194, Agencia de Correos #86, Col. Villa Coapa, Mexico, D.F.
14391,Mexico, Tel/Fax: +52 55 5671 1389, E-mail: cledezma@
servidor.unam.mx and email@example.com
Received 22 August 2005; revised 9 March 2006; accepted 26 April
Neoplasms derived from odontogenic tissues and their
remaining structures represent an uncommon and heterogeneous group of entities that appear in the oral and
maxillofacial tissues. Among them are hamartomas withlimited growth potential, benign and locally aggressive
neoplasms, and a small number of malignant tumours.
The result of the interaction between the diﬀerent
odontogenic tissues and their neoplastic transformation
leads to the development of a large number of odontogenic tumours (OT) that have been diﬃcult to classify.
Ever since the ﬁrst attempt of classiﬁcation (Broca,
1868), severalattempts of reclassiﬁcation have been
made with diagnostic purposes (Bland-Sutton, 1888;
Robinson, 1945; Thoma and Goldman, 1946; Pindborg
and Praetorius-Clausen, 1958). Additionally, the WHO
panel of experts on OT proposed the most widely used
classiﬁcation (Pindborg and Kramer, 1971) which was
restructured in 1992 (Kramer et al, 1992) and recently
updated (Barnes et al, 2005).