Case Reports in Dentistry

Case Reports in Dentistry / 2019 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 8647158 |

Jean Carlos Barbosa Ferreira, Eneida Franco Vêncio, Rodrigo Tavares de Sá, Giovanni Gasperini, "Glandular Odontogenic Cyst in Dentigerous Relationship: An Uncommon Case Report", Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2019, Article ID 8647158, 7 pages, 2019.

Glandular Odontogenic Cyst in Dentigerous Relationship: An Uncommon Case Report

Academic Editor: Roberto Sacco
Received05 May 2019
Accepted03 Jun 2019
Published04 Jul 2019


Glandular odontogenic cyst (GOC) is an uncommon cyst of the jaw. Less than 200 cases are reported in the literature, and only 22 cases are associated with an unerupted tooth (dentigerous relationship). Although it is an asymptomatic lesion, it can be destructive and has high recurrence rates. The diagnosis can be especially challenging due to the lack of distinct diagnostic clinic-radiological criteria and nonspecific microscopic features, mimicking benign and malignant lesions. Conservative surgical treatment has been the choice for most surgeons, but marginal or partial jaw resection has been reported. This report describes a rare case of GOC in a dentigerous relationship, which was treated with enucleation and peripheral osteotomy.

1. Introduction

Glandular odontogenic cysts (GOCs) are uncommon jawbone cysts of odontogenic origin which were firstly described in 1987 by Padayachee and Van Wyk [1] as a “botryoid” odontogenic cyst with glandular component and denominated “sialo-odontogenic cyst.” Gardner et al. [2] in 1988 established this cyst as a distinct entity-denominated glandular odontogenic cyst, which was classified as an odontogenic cyst by the WHO in 1992 [3].

To the best of our knowledge, there are 196 GOCs in the English literature [414]. Clinically, GOCs are small and usually appear as an asymptomatic swelling, though a few cases have presented with pain and paresthesia. The most common site is the mandible, particularly the anterior region. The cyst shows no sex predilection and mostly affects middle-aged individuals, between 45 and 50 years old; however, there are also reports in pediatric patients [4, 15]. According to Kaplan et al. [16], its recurrence rate is around 35.9%, particularly when conservative surgical treatment is chosen.

Radiographically, it presents as a uni- or multilocular cystic lesion, with well-defined margins, though some lesions exhibit scalloped borders. Other findings include loss of cortical integrity, root resorption, and association with unerupted teeth [15]. Some cases show a dentigerous, lateral periodontal, and “globulomaxillary” relationship [17].

Microscopically, the diagnosis of GOC can be challenging, given the rarity of the lesion and the fact that the differential diagnosis includes benign and malignant lesions, such as botryoid cysts, surgical ciliated cysts, radicular or dentigerous cysts with metaplastic changes, and low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) [14, 16, 17]. Histopathological features for the GOC have been described, but the exact microscopic criteria necessary for diagnosis have not been universally accepted. These features include a nonkeratinized stratified squamous lining epithelium with focal thickening (plaques) in the cystic lining, eosinophilic cuboidal or ciliated columnar cells, mucous cells, and interepithelial gland-like structures [13, 16].

Several treatment modalities have been indicated for the GOCs, including conservative approaches, such as enucleation with or without curettage, marsupialization, peripheral ostectomy and chemical cauterization with Carnoy’s solution, and marginal resection/partial jaw resection [4]. This report documents an uncommon case of GOC in a dentigerous relationship (GOC-DR), which was treated with enucleation and peripheral osteotomy.

2. Case Report

A 36-year-old male, with no medical history, was referred to the Clinical Hospital of the Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil, for evaluation of an asymptomatic radiolucent lesion in the posterior mandible region. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan showed a well-defined unilocular radiolucency associated with an impacted right third molar, extending to the distal root of the second molar, measuring (Figure 1). Intraoral examination revealed signs of healthy gingiva; absence of teeth 16, 36, 37, and 46; and absence of bone expansion. However, clinical attachment loss in the distal root of tooth 47 with pulp vitality was verified. Previous aspiration was negative and previous diagnosis of dentigerous cyst was made. Due to the small size of the lesion, the treatment choice included tooth removal, enucleation, and peripheral osteotomy. A thick cystic wall was evident during the surgical procedures.

The histopathological examination revealed cyst wall lining by nonkeratinized stratified squamous epithelium with varied thickness (Figure 2(a)). Duct-like structures surrounded by cuboidal cells and numerous mucous cells were also identified (Figures 2(b) and 2(c)). The superficial layer of the epithelium showed columnar ciliated and eosinophilic cuboidal cells, also called “hobnail cells” (Figure 2(d)).

Glycogen-rich and mucin-secreting cells were highlighted by periodic acid-Schiff (PAS), periodic acid-Schiff diastase (PAS-D) (Figures 3(a)3(c)), and mucicarmine staining (Figure 3(d)). A final diagnosis of GOC was made following the criteria established by Fowler et al. [17]. The postoperative orthopantomogram (OPG) revealed no recurrence one year postsurgery (Figure 4).

3. Discussion

Our study reports an uncommon case of GOC associated with an unerupted third molar mimicking a dentigerous cyst. This characteristic was defined by Fowler et al. [17] as a “dentigerous relationship.” In the English literature, only 22 similar cases have been documented [1822].

Table 1 [1727] summarizes previous published cases of GOC-DR. Complete clinical data was not be available in all cases. Males were more often affected (male : female ratio, 3 : 1) and age ranged from 21 to 62 years old (mean 38 years old). The mandible was affected in 53.8% of cases, in which 57.1% involved the unerupted third molar and 42.8% the canine. Swelling was the most common clinical presentation with 85.7%, followed by pain (28.5%), and numbness (14.2%). Unilocular radiolucency was described in 10 cases (76.9%). Half of the cases were treated with enucleation, followed by curettage (41.6%) and block resection (8.3%). In the present case, a 36-year-old male presented an asymptomatic mandibular lesion detected incidentally by routine radiological examination treated with enucleation and peripheral osteotomy [4, 16, 18, 21, 22]. It should be noted that unlike classic GOC, GOC-DR has a strong predilection for the male sex and posterior mandible.

YearAuthorNumber of casesAge/genderSiteClinical presentationRadiologic featuresTreatmentFollow-up (year)

2019Ferreira et al. (our case)136/MMandibular right third molarAsymptomaticUnilocular radiolucencyEnucleation/peripheral osteotomy1
2015Momeni Roochi et al. [23]162/MMandibular right canine impactedSwellingUnilocular radiolucencyEnucleation3
2012Cano et al. [18]154/MMandibular right third molar (ramus/body)SwellingMultilocular radiolucent, large and well-definedEnucleation and curettage, reconstruction3
2011Fowler et al. [17]8NSNSNSNSNSNS
2009Krishnamurthy et al. [19]121/MMandibular left third molarSwellingMultilocular radiolucencyEn bloc resection2
2006Kasaboglu et al. [24]145/MMandibular left canineSwelling and numbnessUnilocular radiolucency with a well-defined borderEnucleation0.5
2006Shen et al. [25]2Case 1: 40/M; case 2: NSCase 1: maxillary tooth-like structures; case 2: NSCase 1: NS; case 2: NSCase 1: unilocular radiolucency; case 2: NSCase 1: NS; case 2: NSNS
2006Yoon et al. [20]166/FMandibular right third molarSwelling and painfulUnilocular radiolucency, thin sclerotic margin, root resorptionEnucleation1
2005Qin et al. [26]5Case 1: 28/M; case 2: 40/M; case 3: 25/M; case 4: 22/M; case 5: 52/FCase 1: maxilla L (21-27); case 2: maxilla R (11-16); case 3: maxilla R (13-16); case 4: maxilla L (21-23); case 5: maxilla (16-25)Case 1: NS; case 2: NS; case 3: NS; case 4: NS; case 5: NSCase 1: Unilocular radiolucency; case 2: unilocular radiolucency, irregular borders; case 3: unilocular radiolucency, irregular borders; case 4: unilocular radiolucency; case 5: multilocular radiolucencyCase 1: curettage; case 2: curettage; case 3: curettage; case 4: curettage; case 5: curettageNS
2005Kaplan et al. [21, 22]149/MMandibular left third molarSwelling and painlessUnilocular radiolucencyEnucleation, peripheral ostectomy, reconstruction with iliac crest & alloplast bone graft4
1996Ide et al. [27]154/FMandibular right canineAsymptomaticUnilocular radiolucent definite contained the crown of the horizontally impacted right canineEnucleation1

Legend: NS: not specified; M: male; F: female; L: left; R: right. Case 2 shown in the work of Shen et al. [25].

Clinical diagnosis of GOC is challenging. The differential diagnosis includes radicular and dentigerous cysts, odontogenic keratocysts, and ameloblastoma. Although Krishnamurthy et al. [19] suggest that a preoperative aspiration biopsy may be helpful in diagnosing GOC, in our case, it was negative, as reported by Momeni Roochi et al. [23]. Distinct fluids have been reported in the literature, including clear with low viscosity, creamy high-viscosity, and brownish-red liquids [19, 23, 28, 29]. Another interesting clinical finding in our case was the presence of a thick cystic wall, contrary to findings shown by Thor et al. [30].

The histopathological diagnosis of GOC also remains a challenge. Microscopic features include focal epithelial thickening, epithelial plaques, and glycogen-rich epithelial cells, which are also observed in botryoid and lateral periodontal cysts. The presence of ciliated epithelium and duct-like spaces with mucous cells and eosinophilic cuboidal cells located in the epithelial surface support the diagnosis of GOC [17, 31]. According to Fowler et al. [17], the presence of microcysts, clear cells, and epithelial spheres may be helpful in distinguishing GOC-DR from dentigerous cyst with metaplastic changes. The most important and difficult distinction according to Kaplan et al. [16] is the differentiation of low-grade MEC from GOC, especially its multicystic variant. Ciliated cells, superficial cuboidal cells, epithelial whorls, and intraepithelial microcyst or duct-like structures are not typical for low-grade MEC, which can help in the differentiation. Immunostain for MASPIN, Ki-67, and CKs 18 and 19 may be helpful to distinguish GOC from low-grade MEC [14].

Due to the overlapping of histological features with others lesions, Fowler et al. [17] suggested 10 microscopic parameters for diagnosing GOC: surface eosinophilic cuboidal cells or “hobnail cells”, intraepithelial microcysts or duct-like spaces lined by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells, apocrine snouting of hobnail cells, clear or vacuolated cells, variable thickness in the cyst lining, papillary projections or “tufting” into the cyst lumen, mucous goblet cells, epithelial spheres, or plaque-like thickening cilia, and multiple compartments. According to the authors, the presence of seven or more microscopic parameters is highly predictive of a diagnosis of GOC. In our case, only multiple compartments and papillary projections were not evidenced.

Minor surgical procedures, such as enucleation with or without curettage and peripheral ostectomy, are the most common treatment modalities reported in the literature [4, 32]. In this study, enucleation associated with peripheral osteotomy was performed due to three factors: patient choice, clinical and radiological diagnosis of a dentigerous cyst, and lesion size (). On the other hand, radical treatments, such as marginal resection, can sometimes be considered due to the biological behavior of GCO, particularly due to local aggressiveness and recurrence rates around 21-55% [15, 19, 33]. Some reports suggest that recurrence is more common in larger lesions, with cortical bone perforation and multilocular radiographic appearance [30, 32]. In the present case, neither of these characteristics was evident and no recurrence was detected after two years follow-up.

4. Conclusion

This report describes an uncommon case of GOC-DR mimicking other lesions in the oral cavity. These lesions tend to most commonly affect the posterior mandible and younger male patients.

The patient has given his consent for the use of his pictures in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.


This report was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES/BRASIL; process number: 88887.295564/2018-00) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG).


  1. A. Padayachee and C. W. Van Wyk, “Two cystic lesions with features of both the botryoid odontogenic cyst and the central mucoepidermoid tumour: sialo-odontogenic cyst?” Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 499–504, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. D. G. Gardner, H. P. Kessler, R. Morency, and D. L. Schaffner, “The glandular odontogenic cyst: an apparent entity,” Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 359–366, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. I. R. H. Kramer, J. J. Pindborg, and M. Shear, “The WHO histological typing of odontogenic tumors. A commentary on the second edition,” Cancer, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 2988–2994, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. Faisal, S. A. Ahmad, and U. Ansari, “Glandular odontogenic cyst – literature review and report of a paediatric case,” Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 219–225, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. B. Chandolia, M. Bajpai, and M. Arora, “Glandular odontogenic cyst,” Journal of the College of Physicians Surgeons Pakistan, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 23–25, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  6. M. Alaeddini, N. Eshghyar, and S. Etemad-Moghadam, “Expression of podoplanin and TGF-beta in glandular odontogenic cyst and its comparison with developmental and inflammatory odontogenic cystic lesions,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 76–80, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. İ. Akkaş, O. Toptaş, F. Özan, and F. Yılmaz, “Bilateral glandular odontogenic cyst of mandible: a rare occurrence,” Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, vol. 14, no. S1, pp. 443–447, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. N. R. Figueiredo, A. D. Dinkar, and M. M. Khorate, “Glandular odontogenic cyst of the maxilla: a case report and literature review,” The Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 25, p. 116, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. A. Shah, A. Sangle, S. Bussari, and A. V. Koshy, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: a diagnostic dilemma,” Indian Journal of Dentistry, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. L. S. Kumar, S. Manuel, B. J. Nair, and S. Vinod Nair, “An ambiguous asymptomatic swelling in the maxillary anterior region - a case report,” International Journal of Surgery Case Report, vol. 23, pp. 65–69, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. E. Bulut, B. Baş, D. Dinçer, and Ö. Günhan, “Treatment of maxillary glandular odontogenic cyst involving the same place of previously treated traumatic bone cyst,” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. e150–e153, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. S. Chandra, E. S. Reddy, K. Sah, and A. Srivastava, “Maxillary glandular odontogenic cyst: an uncommon entity at an unusual site,” Archives of Iranian Medicine, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 221–224, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  13. A. Mittal, V. Narang, G. Kaur, and N. Sood, “Glandular odontogenic cyst of mandible: a rare entity,” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 9-10, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. Mascitti, A. Santarelli, A. Sabatucci et al., “Glandular odontogenic cyst: review of literature and report of a new case with cytokeratin-19 expression,” The Open Dentistry Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. J. A. Regezi, “Odontogenic cysts, odontogenic tumors, fibroosseous and giant cell lesions of the jaws,” Modern Pathology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 331–341, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. I. Kaplan, Y. Anavi, and A. Hirshberg, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: a challenge in diagnosis and treatment,” Oral Diseases, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 575–581, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. C. B. Fowler, R. B. Brannon, H. P. Kessler, J. T. Castle, and M. A. Kahn, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: analysis of 46 cases with special emphasis on microscopic criteria for diagnosis,” Head and Neck Pathology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 364–375, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. J. Cano, D. M. Benito, J. Montáns, J. F. Rodríguez-Vázquez, J. Campo, and C. Colmenero, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: two high-risk cases treated with conservative approaches,” Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. e131–e136, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Krishnamurthy, H. J. Sherlin, K. Ramalingam et al., “Glandular odontogenic cyst: report of two cases and review of literature,” Head and Neck Pathology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 153–158, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. H. Yoon, S. G. Ahn, S. G. Kim, and J. Kim, “An unusual odontogenic cyst with diverse histologic features,” Yonsei Medical Journal, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 122–125, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. I. Kaplan, Y. Anavi, R. Manor, J. Sulkes, and S. Calderon, “The use of molecular markers as an aid in the diagnosis of glandular odontogenic cyst,” Oral Oncology, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 895–902, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. I. Kaplan, G. Gal, Y. Anavi, R. Manor, and S. Calderon, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: treatment and recurrence,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 435–441, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. Momeni Roochi, I. Tavakoli, F. M. Ghazi, and A. Tavakoli, “Case series and review of glandular odontogenic cyst with emphasis on treatment modalities,” Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 746–750, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. O. Kasaboglu, Z. Basal, and A. Usubütün, “Glandular odontogenic cyst presenting as a dentigerous cyst: a case report,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 731–733, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. Shen, M. Fan, X. Chen, S. Wang, L. Wang, and Y. Li, “Glandular odontogenic cyst in China: report of 12 cases and immunohistochemical study,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 175–182, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. X.-N. Qin, J.-R. Li, X.-M. Chen, and X. Long, “The glandular odontogenic cyst: clinicopathologic features and treatment of 14 cases,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 694–699, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. F. Ide, T. Shimoyama, and N. Horie, “Glandular odontogenic cyst with hyaline bodies: an unusual dentigerous presentation,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 401–404, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. H. H. Araújo de Morais, R. José de Holanda Vasconcellos, T. de Santana Santos, L. M. Guedes Queiroz, and É. J. Dantas da Silveira, “Glandular odontogenic cyst: case report and review of diagnostic criteria,” Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. e46–e50, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. S. Koppang, S. Johannessen, L. K. Haugen, H. R. Haanaes, T. Solheim, and K. Donath, “Glandular odontogenic cyst (sialo-odontogenic cyst): report of two cases and literature review of 45 previously reported cases,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 455–462, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. A. Thor, G. Warfvinge, and R. Fernandes, “The course of a long-standing glandular odontogenic cyst: marginal resection and reconstruction with particulated bone graft, platelet-rich plasma, and additional vertical alveolar distraction,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1121–1128, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. P. Speinght, C. B. Fowler, and H. Kessler, “Odontogenic and non-odontogenic developmental cysts,” WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours, A. K. El-Naggar, C. JKC, J. R. Grandis, T. Takata, and P. J. Slootweg, Eds., Reed IARC, Lyon, 4th edition, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  32. P. Boffano, E. Cassarino, E. Zavattero, P. Campisi, and P. Garzino-Demo, “Surgical treatment of glandular odontogenic cysts,” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 776–780, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. M. C. N. Lyrio, A. F. de Assis, A. R. Germano, and M. de Moraes, “Treatment of mandibular glandular odontogenic cyst with immediate reconstruction: case report and 5-year follow-up,” British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 651–653, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Jean Carlos Barbosa Ferreira et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

1609 Views | 505 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.