ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2017
Immunohistochemistry of Five Molecular Markers for Typing and Management of Ameloblastomas: A Retrospective Analysis of 40 Cases.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aberrant immunoexpression of p53 tumour-suppressor and Bcl-2 family proteins (Bcl-2 and Bax) in ameloblastomas and odontogenic keratocysts.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Molecular biological findings of ameloblastoma.The Japanese dental science review · 2021Review
- Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical, Ultrastructural Characterization of a Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Composite and a Bone Xenograft in Sub-Critical Size Bone Defect in Rat Calvaria.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study are to elucidate if molecular markers can be used to differentiate between the two main types of ameloblastoma (unicystic and solid/multicystic), and to determine whether a biologically 'less-aggressive' subtype exists.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 33 solid/multicystic ameloblastomas and six unicystic ameloblastomas was completed using immunohistochemistry for five molecular markers: P16, P53, MMP-9, Survivin, and Ki-67. Tumors were graded as either negative or positive (mild, moderate, strong), and the results were related to both ameloblastoma subtypes and outcomes following treatment.
resultsUnicystic ameloblastomas were more likely to test strongly positive for P53 than solid/multicystic ameloblastomas (
conclusionsImmunohistochemistry can be valuable in lesions where histological sub-typing of an ameloblastoma is unclear. A biologically 'less-aggressive' subtype may exist, and hence further research into this area is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.