Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas-is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted?

Aditya Kanoi, Tibar Banerjee, Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy, Arindam Sarkar, Pooja Kanoi, Sushovan Saha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Context: The term giant mandibular ameloblastoma (GMAs) while being in popular usage in the medical literature remains largely equivocal. Although a few authors have in the past attempted to ascribe definite criteria to this entity, these are by and large arbitrary and without any benefit in decision-making or contributing to its management. Aims: The aim of this study is to propose a set of objective criteria for GMAs that can be clinically correlated and thereby aid in the management of this entity. Patients and Methods: Of a total of 16 patients with ameloblastoma of the mandible presenting at our institute from August 2012 to September 2016, 11 patients were identified as having GMAs as per the criteria proposed. Results: The defects in the mandible following segmental resection ranged from 7 to 11.5 cm in length (mean: 9.3 cm). No clinical or radiological evidence of tumour recurrence was found during a mean follow-up period of 10.7 months (range: 2-28 months). Conclusions: Defining GMA based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria allows segregation of these lesions, thereby helping to remove ambiguity, simplify decision-making and facilitate communication among treating reconstructive surgeons. Inclusion criteria include: (i) The segmental bone defect following resection with a minimum 1 cm margin of healthy bone should exceed 6 cm (ii) The segmental bone defect should involve the central mandibular segment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)208-215
Number of pages8
JournalIndian Journal of Plastic Surgery
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 01-05-2018
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas-is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this