ReviewDentistry journal2024
Evaluating Treatment Modalities for Reducing Recurrence in Central Giant Cell Granuloma: A Narrative Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge map of recurrence in tenosynovial giant cell tumor: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Giant cell reparative granuloma of the calcaneus in a 32-year-old man without recurrence at 7-year follow-up: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Fibrous Dysplasia Developed at the Site of a Previous Central Giant Cell Granuloma in a Middle-Aged Patient: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- CD34 and Ki-67 Immunoexpression in Periapical Granulomas: Implications for Angiogenesis and Cellular Proliferation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treating central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) is challenging due to high recurrence rates and variable therapy responses. This study examines the efficacy of various treatments in reducing CGCG recurrence. A literature review explored outcomes of surgical excision, curettage, intralesional corticosteroid injection, and adjuvant therapy, considering factors like lesion location, size, and histological features. Aggressive surgical techniques such as en bloc resection were found to potentially lower recurrence rates compared to conservative approaches. However, treatment should be tailored to individual patient needs. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and improve treatment strategies. A concise literature review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, focusing on papers published from 1986 to 2024. Search terms included "central giant cell granuloma", "recurrence", "treatment modalities", and "surgical excision". Studies reporting recurrence rates and treatment outcomes for CGCG were analyzed. Twenty-nine studies were reviewed, including six studies on surgical excision and curettage, eight studies on intralesional corticosteroid injections, six studies on calcitonin therapy, five studies on interferon-alpha therapy, and four studies on the therapy with denosumab. Analysis indicated that aggressive surgical treatments like en bloc resection were associated with lower recurrence rates compared to conservative methods. Predictors of recurrence included lesion size (>3 cm), location (mandible), and aggressive histopathological features. Aggressive surgical excision combined with nonsurgical methods may lower recurrence rates, while conservative techniques remain viable in some cases. Further prospective research is needed to validate these findings and enhance CGCG treatment options.
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.