A giant peripheral ossifying fibroma of the maxilla with extreme difficulty in clinical differentiation from malignancy: a case report and review of the literature
Ryo Takagi,Kosei Mori,Takashi Koike,Sayumi Tsuyuguchi,Kengo Kanai,Yoshihiro Watanabe,Mitsuhiro Okano,Yoshihiro Noguchi,Aya Tanaka,Kinue Kurihara,Kazumichi Sato,Ken Ishizaki,Yuichiro Hayashi,Yorihisa Imanishi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04529-9
2024-05-04
Abstract:Background: Peripheral ossifying fibroma is a nonneoplastic inflammatory hyperplasia that originates in the periodontal ligament or periosteum in response to chronic mechanical irritation. Peripheral ossifying fibroma develops more commonly in young females as a solitary, slow-growing, exophytic nodular mass of the gingiva, no more than 2 cm in diameter. While various synonyms have been used to refer to peripheral ossifying fibroma, very similar names have also been applied to neoplastic diseases that are pathologically distinct from peripheral ossifying fibroma, causing considerable nomenclatural confusion. Herein, we report our experience with an unusual giant peripheral ossifying fibroma with a differential diagnostic challenge in distinguishing it from a malignancy. Case presentation: A 68-year-old Japanese male was referred to our department with a suspected gingival malignancy presenting with an elastic hard, pedunculated, exophytic mass 60 mm in diameter in the right maxillary gingiva. In addition to computed tomography showing extensive bone destruction in the right maxillary alveolus, positron emission tomography with computed tomography revealed fluorodeoxyglucose hyperaccumulation in the gingival lesion. Although these clinical findings were highly suggestive of malignancy, repeated preoperative biopsies showed no evidence of malignancy. Since even intraoperative frozen histological examination revealed no malignancy, surgical resection was performed in the form of partial maxillectomy for benign disease, followed by thorough curettage of the surrounding granulation tissue and alveolar bone. Histologically, the excised mass consisted primarily of a fibrous component with sparse proliferation of atypical fibroblast-like cells, partly comprising ossification, leading to a final diagnosis of peripheral ossifying fibroma. No relapse was observed at the 10-month follow-up. Conclusions: The clinical presentation of giant peripheral ossifying fibromas can make the differential diagnosis from malignancy difficult. Proper diagnosis relies on recognition of the characteristic histopathology and identification of the underlying chronic mechanical stimuli, while successful treatment mandates complete excision of the lesion and optimization of oral hygiene. Complicated terminological issues associated with peripheral ossifying fibroma require appropriate interpretation and sufficient awareness of the disease names to avoid diagnostic confusion and provide optimal management.