ArticleOral radiology2020
Central giant cell granulomas of the jaws: retrospective radiographic analysis of 13 patients.
Article in Oral radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Histopathological and radiographic characteristics of central giant cell granulomas: a retrospective study of 45 cases.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluating Treatment Modalities for Reducing Recurrence in Central Giant Cell Granuloma: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Central giant cell granuloma in the posterior region of mandible mimicking a fibro-osseous lesion and hemangioma: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
- Contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography features and histogram analysis can differentiate ameloblastomas from central giant cell granulomas.World journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Bone-related disorders of the jaw: A clinico-radiological diagnostic algorithm.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of cemento-osseous dysplasia-induced changes in adjacent structures in a Brazilian population.Clinical oral investigations · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was performed to retrospectively analyse the imaging features of 13 patients with central giant cell granulomas (CGCGs) examined at a single institution.
methodsThe orthopantomography and cone beam computed tomography images of 13 patients histopathologically diagnosed with CGCGs were retrospectively analysed. Patients aged > 30 years underwent measurement of their calcium and parathyroid hormone levels. No cases of hyperparathyroidism were identified in the study group.
resultsThirteen lesions of 13 patients (7 female, 6 male) were included in this study. The patients' ages ranged from 8 to 79 years at the time of presentation. Among the 13 lesions, 2 (15.4%) were in the maxilla and 11 (84.6%) were in the mandible. Eight lesions (61.5%) were unilocular and 5 lesions (38.5%) were multilocular with a soap bubble appearance. Three of the lesions were > 5 cm, and the remaining ten lesions were < 5 cm; five of these smaller lesions met at least three of the aggressiveness criteria. Therefore, according to these criteria, eight aggressive and five non-aggressive CGCGs were examined in this series.
conclusionThe distinction between aggressive and non-aggressive CGCGs is extremely important because it leads to changes in the individual treatment protocol that is applied. It may be possible to minimise recurrence after treatment by detecting findings such as cortical perforation or thinning, cortical bone expansion, and the presence of root resorption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30825099What 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.