Abstract
Various treatment modalities have been reported for keratocystic odontogenic tumors (KOT), with different recurrence rates. Marsupialization and decompression are two different conservative surgical techniques for the treatment of KOTs.
This study aimed at comparing the recurrence rate between marsupialization and decompression in the treatment of KOTs with or without adjunctive treatments.
This is a systematic review study. The research sources utilized were PubMed (MEDLINE), Google scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. The keywords which were selected based on Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and PICOS criteria were odontogenic keratocyst, keratocyst odontogenic tumor AND marsupialization OR decompression OR cystectomy OR enucleation OR curettage. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the recurrence rate between marsupialization and decompression with or without adjunctive treatments, regarding various follow-up times.
The number of subjects that underwent marsupialization was 182. There was a significant difference for the recurrence rate between the marsupialization and decompression groups without considering adjunctive treatments (p= 0.001). However, considering adjunctive treatments, there was no difference between marsupialization and the decompression groups (p= 0.18).
It appears that decompression without any adjuvant treatment may have a lower recurrence rate than marsupialization. The recurrence rate was not different when enucleation or cystectomy was performed after decompression and marsupialization.
Keywords: Odontogenic cysts , Mandible , Decompression , Jaw Cysts
Introduction
The keratocystic odontogenic tumor (KOT) is locally aggressive with a high recurrence rate compared to other odontogenic cysts and neoplasms. KOTs have the tendency to invade adjacent tissues[1]. It was described by Philipsen in 1956[2] as an odontogenic keratocyst. KOT was named in 2005, when the World Health Organization termed KOT over odontogenic keratocyst which had been used as a traditional term[3].
Various treatment modalities have been reported with differing recurrence rates: Enucleation[4], enucleation with cryotherapy[5], marsupialization[6], decompression[7] and resection[8]. Marsupialization and decompression have been defined as different surgical techniques. These approaches are aimed at decreasing the size of extensive KOTs prior to enucleation[9] or completely solve the lesions[6]. The main advantage of marsupialization and decompression is the preservation of important anatomical structures such as inferior alveolar nerve and the prevention of a consequent possible deformity[10]. In marsupialization technique, a part of the KOT’s body is cut and removed followed by suturing the lesion’s exposed boundaries to the adjacent mucosa. The created surgical window exposes the cyst to the oral cavity. In the decompression technique, a drain is placed in the lesion, which maintains communication with the cystic cavity. This decreases the intracystic pressure and may result in bone formation[11]. The main difference between these two techniques is the use of a cylindrical device (drain) to prevent closure of the mucosa[12]. Both techniques result in a decrease of the intraluminal pressure/volume or resolving KOT. The lining of many decompressed or marsupialized cysts are more similar to the oral mucosa than to KOT in histological evaluation[11,13]. There is no universal consensus regarding the best management of KOTs.
Concerning the KOTs of jaws, this review was conducted to find out which conservative treatment is associated with a lower recurrence rate and determine if it is necessary to have adjunctive modalities in conservative treatment. It may be hypothesized that there is nodifference in the recurrence rate of marsupialization and decompression techniques. Therefore, the aim of this review was to compare the recurrence rate of these two methods with or without adjunctive treatments.
Description of search strategy of relevant literature
Objective
The objective of this study was to compare the recurrence rate between marsupialization and decompression in the treatment of KOTs with or without adjunctive treatments.
Criteria for considering studies (PICO)
The studies considered for inclusion in this literature review include case series, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and randomized clinical trial studies (Table 1).
Table 1.
Parameters for eligible studies |
---|
P Patients who had non-syndromic KOT |
I Marsupialization and decompression with or without cystectomy |
C Marsupialization without cystectomy |
Decompression without cystectomy |
Marsupialization follows by cystectomy |
Decompression follows by cystectomy |
O Recurrence rate |
P, population; I, intervention; C, control; O, outcome.
Search strategies
The PubMed (MEDLINE) database of the United States National Library of Medicine, Google scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were used as search sources. The keywords were selected based on Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and PICOS criteria. The keywords for search included: odontogenic keratocyst, KOT and marsupialization OR decompression OR cystectomy OR enucleation OR curettage. To avoid missing an article, the references of each selected manuscript was rechecked manually through Google Scholar.
Study selection criteria
A protocol was used for establishment of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles in English language were assessed for the following inclusion criteria including (1) patients who had non-syndromic pathologic proved KOTs, (2) the technique was decompression or marsupialization with or without enucleation or cystectomy and (3) the follow-up time was documented. Studies were excluded if they were animal or in vitro studies. Duplicate publications (risk of bias), syndromic KOTs, articles without histopathological diagnosis or without complete demographic information of each patient were removed from the study.
Quality assessment
Each full-text article was evaluated by two reviewers. We followed the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) which had a clearly stated aim, inclusion of consecutive patients, prospective collection of data, endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, loss to follow-up less than 5% and prospective calculation of the study size[14]. This systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews[15].
Statistical analysis
The statistical analyses were conducted using the statistical package SPSS for PCs, version 19 (IBM, USA). Kaplan Miere test (Log-rank) was applied to compare the recurrence rate between study groups regarding diverse follow-up times.
Evaluation of papers and level of evidence
In an initial research, 1096 articles were identified through electronic database. After removing duplications, 593 articles were evaluated. Twenty-five manuscripts met the inclusion criteria of the research. The total subject number was 341 (Table 2). The mean follow up time was 58.30±32.80 months.
Table 2.
Author | Year | Follow up(months) | Case number | Primary treatment | Secondary Treatment | Recurrence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ribeiro-Júnior et al.[16] | 2017 | 43.5 | 15 | Decompression | Enucleation | 2(15.4%) |
Zhang et al.[17] | 2016 | 21 | 1 | Decompression | Enucleation | 1(100%) |
de Molon et al.[18] | 2015 | 60 | 1 | Marsupialization | No | 0 |
Srivatsan et al.[19] | 2014 | 36 | 2 | Marsupialization | No | 0 |
Padaki et al.[20] | 2014 | 60 | 1 | Decompression | No | 0 |
Hyun et al.[21] | 2009 | 43 | 1 | Decompression | No | 1(100%) |
Pogrel[22] | 2013 | 34.8 | 10 | Marsupialization | No | 0 |
Berge et al.[23] | 2016 | 66 | 70 | Marsupialization | No | 23(32.86%) |
Tabrizi et al.[24] | 2012 | 60 | 13 | Marsupialization | Enucleation in 3 cases | 0 |
Güler et al.[25] | 2012 | 40.54 | 30 | Marsupialization | Enucleation | 0 |
Rossi et al.[26] | 2012 | 60 | 3 | Marsupialization | Cystectomy | 0 |
Zecha et al.[27] | 2010 | 58 | 10 | Marsupialization | No | 4(40%) |
Matijević et al.[28] | 2012 | 84 | 1 | Marsupialization | Enucleation | 0 |
Madras et al.[29] | 2008 | 24 | 3 | Marsupialization | No | 0 |
Habibi et al.[30] | 2007 | 32.5 | 6 | Marsupialization | No | 2(33.33%) |
Habibi et al.[30] | 2007 | 32.5 | 11 | Marsupialization | Enucleation | 0 |
Nakamura et al.[31] | 2002 | 24 | 23 | Marsupialization | Enucleation | 6 (26.08%) |
Nakamura et al.[31] | 2002 | 24 | 5 | Marsupialization | No | 0 |
Marker et al.[32] | 1996 | 156 | 12 | Decompression | Cystectomy | 0 |
Marker et al.[32] | 1996 | 56.4 | 11 | Decompression | Cystectomy | 2(18.18%) |
Brɸndum et al.[33] | 1991 | 108 | 44 | Decompression | Cystectomy | 8(18.18%) |
Maurette et al.[12] | 2006 | 24.89 | 28 | Decompression | No | 4(14.3%) |
Tolstunov et al.[34] | 2008 | 30 | 1 | Marsupialization | Cystectomy | 1(100%) |
Zhao et al.[35] | 2002 | 93.6 | 11 | Marsupialization | Enucleation | 0 |
Jung et al.[36] | 2005 | 24 | 2 | Decompression | Enucleation | 0 |
August et al.[37] | 2003 | 33.6 | 14 | Decompression | No | 0 |
Kolokythas et al.[2] | 2007 | 24 | 11 | Marsupialization | No | 2(18.18%) |
Sánchez-Burgos et al.[38] | 2014 | 60 | 2 | Marsupialization | No | 1(50%) |
The number of subjects who underwent marsupialization was 182 (118 subjects received marsupialization without any adjunctive treatments, 64 underwent enucleation or cystectomy after marsupialization) and 159 subjects received decompression (74 subjects underwent decompression without any adjunctive treatments whereas 85 subjects had enucleation or cystectomy after decompression) (Figure 1).
In 118 subjects who had marsupialization without any extra treatments, 32(27.12%) subjects experienced recurrence lesion whereas among 64 subjects who received marsupialization with enucleation or cystectomy, 7(10.94 %) subjects had recurrence lesion. In 74 subjects who underwent decompression without any extra treatments, 4(5.40%) subjects had recurrence lesions and in 85 subjects who had decompression+enucleation or cystectomy, 12 (14.12%) subjects had recurrence lesions (Table 3). Log rank test showed a significant difference for the recurrence rate between the marsupialization and decompression groups without considering adjunctive treatments (p= 0.001) (Figure 2). However, considering adjunctive treatments, there was no difference between the marsupialization and decompression groups (p= 0.18).
Table 3.
Treatment groups | With recurrence | Without recurrence |
---|---|---|
Marsupialization | 32(27.12%) | 86(72.88%) |
Without extra treatments 118(N) | 7 (10.94%) | 57 (89.06%) |
With extra treatments 64 (N) | ||
Decompression | 4 (5.40%) | 81 (94.60%) |
Without extra treatments 74(N) | 12 (14.12%) | 73(85.88%) |
With extra treatments 85 (N) |
P, population; I, intervention; C, control; O, outcome.
Discussion
KOTs are common benign jaw lesions, which are associated with high recurrence rate after various treatments. Aggressive treatments such as partial resection have a low risk of recurrence. However, jaw deformity and the need of further reconstruction are the drawbacks of such treatments [39]. In this systematic review, the recurrence rates of two conservative treatments with or without adjuvant procedures were evaluated.
In the first analysis, the recurrence rate was higher in the marsupialization group without any adjuvant treatments. It could be hypothesized that creating a larger window in marsupialization than decompression increased the risk of distribution of daughter cysts which increase the recurrence rate. In fact, a small path is created for the placement of a drain in decompression, which results to minimal manipulation of the KOT wall. In the second analysis, there was no statistical difference for the recurrence rate between marsupialization and decompression with further enucleation or cystectomy. Removing any remnant lesion by enucleation or cystectomy may serve as an explanation of this event.
Al-Moraissi et al.[40] conducted a systematic review on recurrence rate following various treatments in KOTs. They concluded that cystectomy is necessary after marsupialization for the reduction of recurrence rate. A systematic review was performed by de Castro et al.[11] on the conservative treatments of KOTs. Their results demonstrated a lower recurrence rate in decompression, followed by enucleation compared to pure enucleation. Wushou and Zhao[10] stated that marsupialization decreases the recurrence of KOTs more than enucleation and surgical resection and it may be the ideal treatment for KOTs. Antonoglou et al.[3] studied non-syndromic and syndromic KOTs in a systematic review and meta-analysis for recurrences. They concluded that resection or marsupialization might be associated with a lower recurrence rate. It was suggested that the use of a cyst plug following marsupialization, might accelerate bone regeneration in large mandibular KOTs[41].
In a systematic review by Mojsa et al.[13], no high quality evidence was found after assessing recurrence rates in terms of the treatment modalities of KOTs. In many articles, the surgical approach for decompression or marsupialization was not clearly described. This could be regarded as a limitation for this study[6,9-10]. Pogrel and Jordan[6] mentioned that the terms decompression and marsupialization were applied interchangeably in some articles. However, they are different techniques.
Conclusion
It appears that decompression without any adjuvant treatment may have a lower recurrence rate than marsupialization. The recurrence rate was not different when enucleation or cystectomy was performed following decompression and marsupialization.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
References
- 1.Chirapathomsakul D, Sastravaha P, Jansisyanont P. A review of odontogenic keratocysts and the behavior of recurrences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 101: 5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.03.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kolokythas A, Fernandes RP, Pazoki A, Ord RA. Odontogenic keratocyst: to decompress or not to decompress? A comparative study of decompression and enucleation versus resection/peripheral ostectomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 640–644. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.06.284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Antonoglou GN, Sándor GK, Koidou VP, Papageorgiou SN. Non-syndromic and syndromic keratocystic odontogenic tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrences. Journal of CranioMaxillo-Facial Surgery. 2014; 42: e364– e371. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Singh M, Gupta K. Surgical treatment of odontogenic keratocyst by enucleation. Contemp Clin Dent. 2010; 1:263–267. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.76398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Schmidt BL, Pogrel MA. The use of enucleation and liquid nitrogen cryotherapy in the management of odontogenic keratocysts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59: 720–725. doi: 10.1053/joms.2001.24278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pogrel MA, Jordan RC. Marsupialization as a definitive treatment for the odontogenic keratocyst. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62: 651–655. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Marker P, Brøndum N, Clausen PP, Bastian HL. Treatment of large odontogenic keratocysts by decompression and later cystectomy: a long-term follow-up and a histologic study of 23 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996; 82: 122–131. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(96)80214-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Williams TP, Connor FA Jr. Surgical management of the odontogenic keratocyst: aggressive approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 964–966. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80081-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Rasmusson L, Albrektsson T. Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) Trends Biotechnol. 2009; 27: 158–167. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wushou A, Zhao YJ, Shao ZM. Marsupialization is the optimal treatment approach for keratocystic odontogenic tumour. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42: 1540–1544. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.De Castro MS, Caixeta CA, de Carli ML, Ribeiro Júnior NV, Miyazawa M, Pereira AAC, et al. Conservative surgical treatments for nonsyndromic odontogenic keratocysts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 2089–2101. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2315-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Maurette PE, Jorge J, de Moraes M. Conservative treatment protocol of odontogenic keratocyst: a preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 379–383. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kaczmarzyk T, Mojsa I, Stypulkowska J. A systematic review of the recurrence rate for keratocystic odontogenic tumour in relation to treatment modalities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41: 756–767. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712–716. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine. 2009; 6: e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ribeiro-Júnior O, Borba AM, Alves CAF, Gouveia MM, Deboni MCZ, Naclério-Homem MDG. Reclassification and treatment of odontogenic keratocysts: A cohort study. Braz Oral Res. 2017; 31: e98. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zhang Q, Li W, Han F, Huang X, Yang X. Recurrent keratocystic odontogenic tumor after effective decompression. J Craniofacia Surg. 2016; 27: e490–e491. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Molon RS, Verzola MH, Pires LC, Mascarenhas VI, da Silva RB, Cirelli JA, et al. Five years follow-up of a keratocyst odontogenic tumor treated by marsupialization and enucleation: A case report and literature review. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015; 6(Suppl 1): S106–S110. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.152963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Srivatsan KS, Kumar V, Mahendra A, Singh P. Bilateral keratocystic odontogenic tumor: A report of two cases. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 5: 86–89. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.140186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Padaki P, Laverick S, Bounds G. Conservative management of a large keratocystic odontogenic tumour. J Surg Case Rep. 2014; 2014: rju091. doi: 10.1093/jscr/rju091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hyun HK, Hong SD, Kim JW. Recurrent keratocystic odontogenic tumor in the mandible: a case report and literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: e7–e10. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pogrel MA. Decompression and marsupialization as a treatment for the odontogenic keratocyst. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2003; 15: 415–427. doi: 10.1016/S1042-3699(03)00038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Berge TI, Helland SB, Sælen A, Øren M, Johannessen AC, Skartveit L, et al. Pattern of recurrence of nonsyndromic keratocystic odontogenic tumors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016; 122: 10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Tabrizi R, Özkan BT, Dehgani A, Langner NJ. Marsupialization as a treatment option for the odontogenic keratocyst. J Craniofac Surg. 2012; 23: e459–e461. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825b3308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Güler N, Sençift K, Demirkol O. Conservative management of keratocystic odontogenic tumors of jaws. Scientific World Journal. 2012; 2012: 680397. doi: 10.1100/2012/680397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rossi D, Borgonovo AE, Vavassori V, Poli PP, Santoro F. Combined treatment of odontogenic keratocysts: initial marsupialization and successiveenucleation with peripheral ostectomy plus Carnoy's solution application. A five-year follow-up experience. Minerva Stomatol 2012; 61: 101–112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Zecha JA, Mendes RA, Lindeboom VB, van der Waal I. Recurrence rate of keratocystic odontogenic tumor after conservative surgical treatment without adjunctive therapies - A 35-year single institution experience. Oral Oncol. 2010; 46: 740–742. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Matijeviý S, Damjanoviý Z, Laziý Z, Gardaševiý M, Radenoviý-đuriý D. Peripheral ostectomy with the use of Carnoy’s solution as a rational surgical approach to odontogenic keratocyst: a case report with 5-year follow-up. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2012;69:1101–1105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Madras J, Lapointe H. Keratocystic odontogenic tumour: reclassification of the odontogenic keratocystfrom cyst to tumour. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008; 74: 165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Habibi A, Saghravanian N, Habibi M, Mellati E, Habibi M. Keratocystic odontogenic tumor: a 10-year retrospective study of 83 cases in an Iranian population. Journal of oral science. 2007; 49: 229–235. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.49.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Nakamura N, Mitsuyasu T, Mitsuyasu Y, Taketomi T, Higuchi Y, Ohishi M. Marsupialization for odontogenic keratocysts: long-term follow-up analysis of the effects and changes in growth characteristics. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94: 543–553. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.128022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Marker P, Brøndum N, Clausen PP, Bastian HL. Treatment of large odontogenic keratocysts by decompression and later cystectomy: a long-term follow-up and a histologic study of 23 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996; 82: 122–131. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(96)80214-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Brøndum N, Jensen VJ. Recurrence of keratocysts and decompression treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 72: 265–269. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(91)90211-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tolstunov L, Treasure T. Surgical treatment algorithm for odontogenic keratocyst: combined treatment of odontogenic keratocyst and mandibular defect with marsupialization, enucleation, iliac crest bone graft, and dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66: 1025–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Zhao YF, Wei JX, Wang SP. Treatment of odontogenic keratocysts: a follow-up of 255 Chinese patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94: 151–156. doi: 10.1067/moe.2001.125694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jung YS, Lee SH, Park HS. Decompression of large odontogenic keratocysts of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63: 267–271. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.August M, Faquin WC, Troulis MJ, Kaban LB. Dedifferentiation of odontogenic keratocyst epithelium after cyst decompression. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 61: 678–683. doi: 10.1053/joms.2003.50137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Sánchez-Burgos R, González-Martín-Moro J, Pérez-Fernández E, Burgueño-García M. Clinical, radiological and therapeutic features of keratocystic odontogenic tumours: a study over a decade. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014; 6: e259–e264. doi: 10.4317/jced.51408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Morgan TA, Burton CC, Qian F. A retrospective review of treatment of the odontogenic keratocyst. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63: 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.07.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Al-Moraissi EA, Dahan AA, Alwadeai MS, Oginni FO, Al-Jamali JM, Alkhutari AS, et al. What surgical treatment has the lowest recurrence rate following the management of keratocystic odontogenic tumor? A large systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 131–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zhao Y, Liu B, Han QB, Wang SP, Wang YN. Changes in bone density and cyst volume after marsupialization of mandibular odontogenic keratocysts (keratocystic odontogenic tumors) J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 1361–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]