Journal of Conservative Dentistry

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 164--168

Comparative evaluation of immunohistochemistry, histopathology and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions


Prahlad A Saraf1, Sharad Kamat2, RS Puranik3, Surekha Puranik4, Suma P Saraf5, Bhanu Pratap Singh6 
1 Departments of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, P M N M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
2 Departments of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharathi Vidyapeeth Deemed University Dental College and Hospital, Wanlesswadi, Sangli, Maharashtra, India
3 Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, P M N M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
4 Departments of Oral Medicine Diagnosis and Radiology, P M N M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
5 Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P M N M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
6 Departments of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Prahlad A Saraf
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, P M N M Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka
India

Background and Aim: Periapical lesions often present differently on the radiograph resulting in a dilemma in the mind of the dentist to arrive at a final diagnosis. Although, histopathologic diagnosis has been used for confirmation of the true nature of periapical lesion, the concept of transformation of periapical granulomas containing epithelium without cystification into cyst remains controversial. The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the efficacy of conventional radiography and histopathology in differentiating periapical lesions in adjunct with immunohistochemical analysis. Materials and Method: Thirty patients having large periapical radiolucency that do not heal successfully with routine endodontic therapy in relation to either maxillary or mandibular anterior teeth were selected for the study. Intraoral periapical radiographs were obtained and provisional diagnosis of the apical areas were made. Endodontic surgery was performed to enable histopathogical investigation. The histopathological interpretation was done to arrive at a final diagnosis and selected questionable granulomas were subjected for cytokeratin (CK-14) stain. Results: The histopathological profile of lesions consisted of 66.66% periapical granulomas, 10% cysts, 6.67% abscess and 16.67% granulomas with cystic potential. The radiographic and histopathologic correlation was found in only 30% of these cases. Strong CK-14 expression was observed in all five cases of periapical granuloma with cystic potential. Conclusion: The radiographic diagnosis of periapical lesions remains inconclusive. Although histopathologic examination of periapical lesions gives true nature, the precise nature of subsets of periapical granulomas may be achieved with adjunct use of immunohistochemical markers.


How to cite this article:
Saraf PA, Kamat S, Puranik R S, Puranik S, Saraf SP, Singh BP. Comparative evaluation of immunohistochemistry, histopathology and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions.J Conserv Dent 2014;17:164-168


How to cite this URL:
Saraf PA, Kamat S, Puranik R S, Puranik S, Saraf SP, Singh BP. Comparative evaluation of immunohistochemistry, histopathology and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 27 ];17:164-168
Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/article.asp?issn=0972-0707;year=2014;volume=17;issue=2;spage=164;epage=168;aulast=Saraf;type=0