Lesion catalogue

Browse Atlas

Lesion / Benign odontogenic tumors

Conventional ameloblastoma

Also known as: Ameloblastoma-multilocular

Occurs in: both jaws, maxilla, mandible. ORAD scores these locations as separate rows in the differential.

Updated 2026-07-12 Suggest an edit

Overview and definition

Conventional ameloblastoma is a benign, locally aggressive odontogenic neoplasm of epithelial origin that arises from remnants of the dental lamina, developing enamel organ, epithelial lining of odontogenic cysts, or basal cells of the oral mucosa.[1][2][3] It is the most common clinically significant odontogenic tumor, accounting for approximately 18% of all odontogenic tumors and 1% of head and neck neoplasms.[4][5] The tumor infiltrates cancellous bone through medullary spaces, producing the characteristic multilocular radiolucency that defines this article's focus.[5][6] Despite its benign histology, the locally infiltrative growth pattern necessitates aggressive surgical management to prevent recurrence.[2]

Terminology and classification

Current Classification

The 2022 WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours (5th edition) recognizes four categories of ameloblastoma: conventional, unicystic, peripheral, and metastasizing.[7][8] The term "conventional ameloblastoma" replaced the older designation "solid/multicystic ameloblastoma" because most conventional ameloblastomas exhibit cystic degeneration macroscopically, making the qualifier "multicystic" redundant and potentially misleading.[1]

Historical and Obsolete Terms

  • Adamantinoma: the original name introduced by Malassez in 1890; abandoned in 1929 because ameloblastomas do not produce enamel.[4]
  • Solid/multicystic ameloblastoma: used in the 2005 WHO classification and earlier editions; now discouraged.[1]
  • Classical ameloblastoma: an informal synonym still encountered in some literature.[1]

The desmoplastic variant, previously classified as a separate subtype, is now considered a histological variant of conventional ameloblastoma in the 2022 WHO edition.[7]

Epidemiology

  • Incidence: pooled global estimate of 0.92 per million person-years, with higher rates in Africa, China, and India.[3][4]
  • Age: mean age at diagnosis approximately 34 years; peak incidence in the third decade; patients in Africa and South America tend to present at a younger age than those in Europe and North America.[3][8]
  • Sex: slight male predominance (approximately 53% male).[3]
  • Location: approximately 80% occur in the mandible, predominantly in the body, ramus, and angle (molar–ramus region); 20% arise in the maxilla, mainly posteriorly. Anterior mandibular and premolar locations are more common in Afro-Caribbean populations.[4][5][9]
  • Frequency among ameloblastoma subtypes: conventional ameloblastoma constitutes approximately 80–91% of all ameloblastomas.[1][2][4]

Clinical presentation

Conventional ameloblastoma typically presents as a slow-growing, painless swelling of the affected jaw.[2][4] The indolent course frequently delays diagnosis; up to 35% of cases are discovered incidentally on imaging obtained for other reasons.[4][9]

Symptoms and Signs

  • Firm, non-tender buccal or lingual expansion of the jaw is the most common finding.[2]
  • Pain, when present, is usually attributable to secondary infection, hemorrhage into the lesion, or cortical perforation with soft-tissue involvement.[4][5]
  • Progressive expansion may cause loosening and displacement of teeth, malocclusion, facial asymmetry, and difficulty with mastication.[10]
  • Paresthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve is uncommon in benign ameloblastoma; its presence should raise concern for ameloblastic carcinoma or perineural involvement.[4]

Complications and Red Flags

  • Maxillary ameloblastomas may extend into the maxillary sinus, nasal cavity, orbit, or skull base, complicating both diagnosis and surgical management.[1][9]
  • Rapid growth, pain, ulceration, or paresthesia should prompt consideration of ameloblastic carcinoma.[1][4]
  • Malignant transformation and distant metastasis (most commonly pulmonary) are rare; the 5-year metastasis rate is approximately 1% and transformation to ameloblastic carcinoma approximately 3%, with extraosseous extension identified as a risk factor.[11]

Radiographic findings

Location and Distribution

Conventional ameloblastoma has a strong predilection for the posterior mandible, centered on the molar–ramus region, often extending from the body through the angle into the ramus.[2][9][12] Maxillary lesions favor the posterior region and may invade the maxillary sinus and nasal floor.[13] Anterior mandibular involvement is less common overall but is seen more frequently in certain populations and in the desmoplastic variant.[5][14]

Periphery and Shape

  • The multilocular variant typically displays a well-defined, corticated border consistent with slow, expansile growth.[5]
  • A thin layer of subperiosteal new bone may be visible along the outer cortex.[5]
  • Scalloped margins are common and help distinguish ameloblastoma from odontogenic keratocyst, which more often has smooth borders.[15]
  • Ill-defined or irregular margins are atypical for conventional ameloblastoma and should raise suspicion for ameloblastic carcinoma or the desmoplastic variant.[1]

Internal Architecture

  • The hallmark is a multilocular radiolucency created by bony septa of variable thickness that divide the lesion into compartments.[4][9][16]
    • Soap-bubble pattern: large, rounded compartments separated by coarse septa; classically associated with the follicular histological subtype.[17][18]
    • Honeycomb pattern: smaller, more numerous compartments with finer septa.[9][18]
  • The internal content is entirely radiolucent; any radiopacity within the lesion (calcification or mineralized tissue) is inconsistent with conventional ameloblastoma and should prompt consideration of other entities or the desmoplastic variant.[5]
  • On cross-sectional imaging with contrast, the majority of conventional ameloblastomas demonstrate a mixed cystic and solid pattern, which is a key discriminator from purely cystic odontogenic lesions.[16]

Effects on Teeth and Adjacent Structures

  • Root resorption: extensive, often knife-edge resorption of roots of involved teeth is characteristic and significantly more common than in odontogenic keratocyst.[15][16][19]
  • Tooth displacement: teeth adjacent to or within the lesion are frequently displaced.[7][9]
  • Association with unerupted teeth: an unerupted or impacted third molar is commonly found within or adjacent to the lesion, mimicking a dentigerous cyst.[1][4][9]
  • Cortical expansion: marked buccolingual expansion with thinning of the cortical plates is typical; buccal expansion predominates.[4][15][16]
  • Cortical perforation: occurs with advanced lesions and is a risk factor for recurrence.[9][16]
  • Inferior alveolar nerve canal: the canal may be displaced, compressed, or engulfed; involvement is associated with increased recurrence risk.[9]

Growth Pattern and Extent

  • The tumor infiltrates through cancellous bone along medullary spaces, often extending beyond the radiographically apparent margin.[2][6]
  • The inferior cortical border of the mandible and periosteum typically expand without perforation until late in the disease course.[6]
  • Maxillary lesions may extend into the maxillary sinus, orbit, nasal cavity, or skull base, making margin assessment critical.[1][9][13]

Recognized Variants

  • Unilocular presentation: small or early conventional ameloblastomas may appear unilocular, closely mimicking an odontogenic keratocyst or dentigerous cyst; multilocularity becomes apparent as the lesion enlarges.[5]
  • Desmoplastic variant: characteristically presents with a mixed radiolucent–radiopaque pattern, honeycomb internal architecture, and ill-defined borders; favors the anterior and premolar regions.[7][14][20]

Differential diagnosis

The multilocular radiolucent pattern in the posterior mandible generates a focused differential that can usually be narrowed by integrating location, expansion pattern, internal architecture, and effects on adjacent teeth.

EntityWhy it is consideredBest discriminator
Odontogenic keratocystMultilocular radiolucency in the posterior mandible, often associated with an impacted toothAmeloblastoma produces greater buccolingual expansion and root resorption; keratocyst tends to grow along the long axis of the jaw with minimal expansion[5][15][21]
Odontogenic myxomaMultilocular radiolucency with fine angular septa producing a "tennis-racket" or "step-ladder" patternSepta in myxoma are typically straight, thin, and angular rather than the coarser, curved septa of ameloblastoma; root resorption is less prominent[21][22]
Central giant cell granulomaMultilocular radiolucency, more common in the anterior mandible and in patients under 30 yearsAnterior location, younger age, and wispy internal septa favor giant cell granuloma; ameloblastoma predominates in the posterior mandible[21][23][24]
Aneurysmal bone cystExpansile multilocular radiolucency with rapid growth and possible fluid–fluid levelsRapid clinical expansion and fluid–fluid levels on cross-sectional imaging distinguish this entity; ameloblastoma grows slowly[21][24]

The highest-risk diagnostic pitfall is misidentifying a conventional ameloblastoma as an odontogenic keratocyst, because the two lesions require fundamentally different surgical approaches. Incisional biopsy of solid tissue is mandatory for definitive diagnosis.[5]

Histopathology

Diagnostic Microscopic Features

Conventional ameloblastoma recapitulates the enamel organ and displays two principal growth patterns, which frequently coexist within the same tumor:[1][5][6]

  • Follicular pattern: discrete islands of odontogenic epithelium within a fibrous stroma
    • Peripheral cells are columnar with hyperchromatic nuclei polarized away from the basement membrane (reverse nuclear polarity), resembling pre-ameloblasts.[5][8]
    • Central cells are loosely arranged with prominent intercellular spaces, resembling stellate reticulum.[5][6]
    • Coalescence of microcysts within epithelial islands produces the macroscopic multicystic appearance.[6]
  • Plexiform pattern: anastomosing cords and sheets of odontogenic epithelium with the stroma seemingly enclosed by epithelium; cyst formation results primarily from stromal degeneration.[1][5][6]

The cytology is bland, with sparse mitotic figures and no nuclear atypia; these features distinguish conventional ameloblastoma from ameloblastic carcinoma.[5][6]

Histological Variants

Less common cytological variants include acanthomatous (squamous metaplasia), granular cell, basal cell, and spindle cell types.[1][4][5] The granular cell variant, though rare (~3.5%), has been associated with more aggressive behavior.[4] The desmoplastic variant features compressed epithelial islands within dense collagenous stroma, often with metaplastic bone formation.[1][5]

Radiologic–Pathologic Correlation

The follicular pattern correlates with the soap-bubble multilocular radiographic appearance, while the plexiform pattern more often presents as a unilocular lesion.[17] Cystic degeneration within both patterns accounts for the mixed cystic and solid content seen on contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging.[6][16]

Molecular Findings

  • BRAF V600E is the most frequent oncogenic mutation, with a pooled prevalence of approximately 72% across ameloblastomas; it is markedly enriched in mandibular tumors (~78–92%).[25][26][27]
  • SMO L412F mutations predominate in maxillary ameloblastomas.[26][27]
  • Additional mutations in FGFR2, KRAS, NRAS, and CTNNB1 occur in a mutually exclusive pattern with BRAF.[26][28]
  • BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (clone VE1) shows 100% concordance with molecular detection and can aid diagnosis in histologically challenging cases.[28][29]

Management and prognosis

Workup and Referral

  • Panoramic radiography is the initial imaging study; cross-sectional imaging is essential for defining the full extent of the lesion, cortical integrity, and relationship to vital structures before surgical planning.[1][16]
  • Incisional biopsy targeting solid tissue is mandatory for histopathological confirmation and subtyping.[5]
  • Referral to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon is standard once imaging suggests a multilocular odontogenic tumor.

Definitive Treatment

  • Radical resection (segmental or marginal) with 1.5–2 cm margins beyond the radiographic boundary is the standard of care for conventional ameloblastoma.[2][8]
  • Conservative approaches (enucleation, curettage, fenestration decompression) carry substantially higher recurrence rates and are generally reserved for unicystic ameloblastoma or selected cases in pediatric patients.[2][9]

Recurrence

  • Pooled recurrence rate after radical surgery: ~8%; after conservative surgery: ~41%.[2]
  • Risk factors for recurrence include multilocular or honeycomb radiographic pattern, cortical bone perforation, and inferior alveolar nerve involvement.[9]
  • Curettage with fenestration decompression (CFD) has emerged as an intermediate option with recurrence rates (~25%) lower than enucleation or curettage alone, though higher than resection.[9]

Surveillance

  • Long-term follow-up is essential; recurrences may appear years to decades after initial treatment.[11][30]
  • Clinical and radiographic surveillance at regular intervals is recommended indefinitely, with closer follow-up for lesions with adverse prognostic features.[11][31]

Prognosis

  • Overall prognosis is favorable with adequate surgical margins. Maxillary ameloblastomas carry a worse prognosis due to proximity to critical structures and difficulty achieving clear margins.[9]
  • Malignant transformation and distant metastasis are rare but warrant awareness, particularly in tumors with extraosseous extension.[11]

Special considerations

Targeted Therapy

The high prevalence of BRAF V600E mutations has opened a pathway for precision medicine in ameloblastoma. BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib) and combined BRAF/MEK inhibition (dabrafenib plus trametinib) have been used in case reports and small series for recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic disease, with most patients achieving partial or complete radiographic response.[25][32][33][34] Neoadjuvant targeted therapy to reduce tumor volume before surgery has been reported in both adult and pediatric patients, potentially allowing less morbid resection.[34][35] These agents remain investigational for ameloblastoma; prospective trials are needed to define optimal protocols.[25][36]

Pediatric Considerations

Ameloblastoma in children and adolescents raises concerns about growth disturbance following radical jaw resection. Conservative surgical approaches and neoadjuvant BRAF-targeted therapy have been explored to minimize skeletal morbidity in this population.[9][32]

ORAD reference data

Radiographic characteristics

18 characteristics

Banded distributions from the ORAD reference database.

Clinical Features

What is the sex of your patient? Male · commonly
What is the sex of your patient?
FindingFrequency
Male commonly
Female commonly
Unknown rarely
What is the race of your patient? Nonblack · usually
What is the race of your patient?
FindingFrequency
Black sometimes
Nonblack usually
Unknown rarely
What is the age of your patient? 26 - 50 · commonly
What is the age of your patient?
FindingFrequency
0 - 10 rarely
11 - 25 sometimes
26 - 50 commonly
50 + sometimes
Unknown rarely
Does your patient have pain or paresthesia? No pain · commonly
Does your patient have pain or paresthesia?
FindingFrequency
Pain sometimes
No pain commonly
Unknown rarely

Radiographic Features

Which jaw contains the lesion? Mandible only · usually
Which jaw contains the lesion?
FindingFrequency
Maxilla only occasionally
Mandible only usually
Both jaws rarely
The lesion center is in what region ? Molar region · commonly
The lesion center is in what region ?
FindingFrequency
Incisor region occasionally
Canine/Premolar Region occasionally
Molar region commonly
Ramus region sometimes
TMJ region rarely
Sinus region occasionally
The relationship of the lesion to teeth is: Not tooth associated · commonly
The relationship of the lesion to teeth is:
FindingFrequency
Crown associated sometimes
Root associated occasionally
Apex associated rarely
Missing tooth associated occasionally
Not tooth associated commonly
Is the tooth associated with the lesion vital? Vital · usually
Is the tooth associated with the lesion vital?
FindingFrequency
Vital usually
Not vital rarely
Unknown rarely
Please estimate the number of lesions: One · usually
Please estimate the number of lesions:
FindingFrequency
One usually
Two rarely
Three or more rarely
Generalized not reported
What is the maximum size of the lesion? Greater than 3 cm · usually
What is the maximum size of the lesion?
FindingFrequency
Less than 2 cm occasionally
2 to 3 cm occasionally
Greater than 3 cm usually
Where is the origin of the lesion? Central · usually
Where is the origin of the lesion?
FindingFrequency
Central usually
Peripheral not reported
The borders of the lesion are: Corticated · commonly
The borders of the lesion are:
FindingFrequency
Corticated commonly
Defined but not corticated sometimes
Diffuse occasionally
The loculation of the lesion is: Multilocular · usually
The loculation of the lesion is:
FindingFrequency
Unilocular sometimes
Multilocular usually
Not loculated rarely
The contents of the lesions are: Radiolucent · usually
The contents of the lesions are:
FindingFrequency
Radiolucent usually
Radiopaque not reported
Mixed rarely
Radiolucent with flecks rarely
Does the lesion contain one or more teeth ? No · usually
Does the lesion contain one or more teeth ?
FindingFrequency
Yes sometimes
No usually
Unknown rarely
Does the lesion expand the bony cortex? Yes · usually
Does the lesion expand the bony cortex?
FindingFrequency
Yes usually
No occasionally
Does the lesion cause root resorption ? Yes · commonly
Does the lesion cause root resorption ?
FindingFrequency
Yes commonly
No commonly
Does the lesion cause tooth displacement or impaction? No · commonly
Does the lesion cause tooth displacement or impaction?
FindingFrequency
Yes sometimes
No commonly
Atlas sources

References

95 sources
  1. 1
    Ameloblastoma: current etiopathological concepts and management. Effiom OA, Ogundana OM, Akinshipo AO, Akintoye SO. Oral Diseases. 2018;24(3):307-316. doi:10.1111/odi.12646.
  2. 2
    Radical vs conservative treatment of intraosseous ameloblastoma: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Hendra FN, Natsir Kalla DS, Van Cann EM, et al. Oral Diseases. 2019;25(7):1683-1696. doi:10.1111/odi.13014.
  3. 3
    Global incidence and profile of ameloblastoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Hendra FN, Van Cann EM, Helder MN, et al. Oral Diseases. 2020;26(1):12-21. doi:10.1111/odi.13031.
  4. 4
    Ameloblastoma—Clinical, radiological, and therapeutic findings. Kreppel M, Zöller J. Oral Diseases. 2018;24(1-2):63-66. doi:10.1111/odi.12702.
  5. 5
    Odontogenic tumors: a review. Morgan PR. Periodontology 2000. 2011;57(1):160-76. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2011.00393.x.
  6. 6
    Lesions of the jaws. Slootweg PJ. Histopathology. 2009;54(4):401-18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03097.x.
  7. 7
    Classic Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma: Should It Be a Distinct Subtype of Ameloblastoma?—Based on Clinicopathological, Radiological, Immunohistochemical and Molecular Study of a Large Cohort. Zheng X, Xia R, Zhu W, et al. Oral Diseases. 2025;31(10):2914-2925. doi:10.1111/odi.15376.
  8. 8
    Exploratory Advanced Radiotherapies for Ameloblastoma and Ameloblastic Carcinoma—A Concise Review. Turkstani H, Alfaifi A, Akintoye SO. Oral Diseases. 2025;31(10):2848-2856. doi:10.1111/odi.15403.
  9. 9
    Risk Factors and Nomogram for Predicting the Recurrence of Conventional Ameloblastoma. Ouyang S, Zhang J, Ren L, et al. Oral Diseases. 2025;31(11):3103-3114. doi:10.1111/odi.15360.
  10. 10
    Metastatic ameloblastoma: Cytologic diagnosis of a rare entity. Al Amri R, Khader S. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2022;50(8):411-413. doi:10.1002/dc.24995.
  11. 11
    Incidence and Risk Factors for Recurrence, Metastasis, and Malignant Transformation of Ameloblastoma. Hennocq Q, Bouaoud J, Benassarou M, et al. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2026.03.007.
  12. 12
    Epidemiological Features of 4777 Cysts and Odontogenic Tumors Based on the 2022 WHO Classification. Rees V, Klare M, Samaniego V, et al. Oral Diseases. 2025;31(2):532-540. doi:10.1111/odi.15146.
  13. 13
    Three-Dimensional Radiographic Features of Ameloblastoma and Cystic Lesions in the Maxilla. Meng Y, Zhao YN, Zhang YQ, Liu DG, Gao Y. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology. 2019;48(6):20190066. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20190066.
  14. 14
    Cone Beam Computed Tomography Signs of Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma: Review of 7 Cases. Luo J, You M, Zheng G, Xu L. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2014;118(4):e126-33. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2014.07.008.
  15. 15
    Three-Dimensional Radiographic and Morphological Features of Ameloblastoma and Odontogenic Keratocyst: A Comparative Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study Using Automatic Segmentation. Li L, Huang S, Zhang X, et al. International Dental Journal. 2026;76(4):109700. doi:10.1016/j.identj.2026.109700.
  16. 16
    Imaging Characteristics of Ameloblastomas and Diagnostic Value of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Series of 26 Patients. Apajalahti S, Kelppe J, Kontio R, Hagström J. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2015;120(2):e118-30. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.05.002.
  17. 17
    A Clinicopathologic Study of Ameloblastoma. Ueno S, Nakamura S, Mushimoto K, Shirasu R. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : Official Journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 1986;44(5):361-5. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(86)80031-3.
  18. 18
    Ameloblastoma with adenoid features: Case report with cyto‐histopathologic correlation and molecular findings. Jofre SA, Roth M, Lahouti AH, et al. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2022;50(6):E140-E145. doi:10.1002/dc.24929.
  19. 19
    Evaluation of Mandibular Odontogenic Keratocyst and Ameloblastoma by Panoramic Radiograph and Computed Tomography. Alves DBM, Tuji FM, Alves FA, et al. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology. 2018;47(7):20170288. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20170288.
  20. 20
    Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma (Including "Hybrid" Lesion of Ameloblastoma). Biological Profile Based on 100 Cases From the Literature and Own Files. Philipsen HP, Reichart PA, Takata T. Oral Oncology. 2001;37(5):455-60. doi:10.1016/s1368-8375(00)00111-1.
  21. 21
    Cysts and Cystic Lesions of the Mandible: Clinical and Radiologic-Histopathologic Review. Scholl RJ, Kellett HM, Neumann DP, Lurie AG. Radiographics : A Review Publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 1999 Sep-Oct;19(5):1107-24. doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se021107.
  22. 22
    Periapical Cysts Exhibit Multilocular Characteristics Similar to Odontogenic Keratocysts and Ameloblastomas. Cai ZH, Li LY, Man QW, et al. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2025;36(6):e731-e735. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000011296.
  23. 23
    Frequency and Distribution of Radiolucent Jaw Lesions: A Retrospective Analysis of 9,723 Cases. Koivisto T, Bowles WR, Rohrer M. Journal of Endodontics. 2012;38(6):729-32. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.028.
  24. 24
    Radiologic and Pathologic Characteristics of Benign and Malignant Lesions of the Mandible. Dunfee BL, Sakai O, Pistey R, Gohel A. Radiographics : A Review Publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1751-68. doi:10.1148/rg.266055189.
  25. 25
    Precision Therapy for BRAF V600e-Mutated Ameloblastoma: Systematic Review Insights. Zhou Y, Yi J, Momen-Heravi F, et al. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery : Official Publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. 2026;54(7):104566. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2026.104566.
  26. 26
    Mutational Landscape of Ameloblastoma: Analysis of BRAF and Other Key Mutations in Chinese Patients. You Z, Sima Z, Guo X, et al. Oral Diseases. 2025;31(7):2215-2220. doi:10.1111/odi.15286.
  27. 27
    Identification of Recurrent SMO and BRAF Mutations in Ameloblastomas. Sweeney RT, McClary AC, Myers BR, et al. Nature Genetics. 2014;46(7):722-5. doi:10.1038/ng.2986.
  28. 28
    Activating FGFR2-RAS-BRAF Mutations in Ameloblastoma. Brown NA, Rolland D, McHugh JB, et al. Clinical Cancer Research : An Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2014;20(21):5517-26. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1069.
  29. 29
    Plexiform Ameloblastoma: A Potential Diagnostic Challenge. Huang M, Bradley G, Perez-Ordonez B, et al. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2025.03.006.
  30. 30
    Controversies in Ameloblastoma Management: Evaluation of Decision Making, Based on a Retrospective Analysis. Hresko A, Burtyn O, Pavlovskiy L, et al. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal. 2021;26(2):e181-e186. doi:10.4317/medoral.24104.
  31. 31
    The Effect of Conservative vs. Radical Treatment of Ameloblastoma on Recurrence Rate and Quality of Life: An Umbrella Review. Gasparro R, Giordano F, Campana MD, et al. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024;13(17):5339. doi:10.3390/jcm13175339.
  32. 32
    Genomic profiling and precision medicine in complex ameloblastoma. Gates JC, Clark AP, Cherkas E, et al. Head & Neck. 2023;45(4):816-826. doi:10.1002/hed.27294.
  33. 33
    Targeted therapies in ameloblastomas and ameloblastic carcinoma—A systematic review. Bologna-Molina R, Schuch L, Magliocca K, et al. Oral Diseases. 2024;30(6):3571-3581. doi:10.1111/odi.14962.
  34. 34
    BRAF Inhibitors in BRAF V600e-Mutated Ameloblastoma: Systematic Review of Rare Cases in the Literature. Ebeling M, Scheurer M, Sakkas A, et al. Medical Oncology (Northwood, London, England). 2023;40(6):163. doi:10.1007/s12032-023-01993-z.
  35. 35
    BRAF V600E mutation mediates invasive and growth features in ameloblastoma. Zhang CX, Zhang LZ, Lin H, Man QW, Liu B. Oral Diseases. 2024;30(7):4426-4439. doi:10.1111/odi.14909.
  36. 36
    From Pathogenesis to Precision Medicine: Transformative Advances in Research and Treatment of Ameloblastoma. Zhao Z, Xiong G, Wang C, Cao W. Cancer Letters. 2025;612:217448. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2025.217448.
  37. 37
    Conceptual changes in ameloblastoma: Suggested re‐classification of a "veteran" tumor. Zlotogorski-Hurvitz A, Soluk Tekkeşin M, Passador-Santos F, et al. Oral Diseases. 2022;28(3):703-710. doi:10.1111/odi.13770.
  38. 38
    Peripheral Ameloblastoma: Biological Profile Based on 160 Cases From the Literature. Philipsen HP, Reichart PA, Nikai H, Takata T, Kudo Y. Oral Oncology. 2001;37(1):17-27. doi:10.1016/s1368-8375(00)00064-6.
  39. 39
    Peripheral Ameloblastoma: A Study of 21 Cases, Including 5 Reported as Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Gingiva. Gardner DG. Cancer. 1977;39(4):1625-33. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197704)39:43.0.co;2-v.
  40. 40
    Peripheral Ameloblastoma: A Case Report and Review of Literature. Decani S, Quatrale M, Caria V, Moneghini L, Varoni EM. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024;13(22):6714. doi:10.3390/jcm13226714.
  41. 41
    Current Practice in the Management of Peripheral Ameloblastoma: A Structured Review. Anpalagan A, Tzortzis A, Twigg J, et al. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021;59(1):e1-e8. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.084.
  42. 42
    Peripheral ameloblastoma of the gingiva: the importance of diagnosis. López-Jornet P, Bermejo-Fenoll A. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2005;32(1):12-5. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00627.x.
  43. 43
    Oral Peripheral Ameloblastoma: A Retrospective Series Study of 25 Cases. Zhang X, Tian X, Hu Y, et al. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal. 2018;23(3):e277-e281. doi:10.4317/medoral.22225.
  44. 44
    The nexus between periodontics and oral pathology. Rich AM, Seo B, Parachuru V, Hussaini HM. Periodontology 2000. 2017;74(1):176-181. doi:10.1111/prd.12197.
  45. 45
    Peripheral Ameloblastoma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. LeCorn DW, Bhattacharyya I, Vertucci FJ. Journal of Endodontics. 2006;32(2):152-4. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.028.
  46. 46
    Peripheral Ameloblastoma Underlying Squamous Cell Papilloma After a Third Molar Extraction. AlAli AM, Hawkins D, Glass S. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2024;137(4):e53-e56. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2023.09.005.
  47. 47
    Peripheral Odontogenic Tumours--Differential Diagnosis in Gingival Lesions. Manor Y, Mardinger O, Katz J, Taicher S, Hirshberg A. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2004;33(3):268-73. doi:10.1006/ijom.2003.0508.
  48. 48
    BRAF V600E expression in ameloblastomas—A 36‐patient cohort from Helsinki University Hospital. Kelppe J, Thorén H, Ristimäki A, et al. Oral Diseases. 2019;25(4):1169-1174. doi:10.1111/odi.13072.
  49. 49
    The Diagnostic Utility of BRAF VE1 Mutation-Specific Immunohistochemistry in Ameloblastoma. Mendez LD, Wolsefer NS, Asa SL, et al. Modern Pathology : An Official Journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2022;35(11):1570-1577. doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01105-8.
  50. 50
    Utility of BRAF V600E Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Mandibular Ameloblastomas. Ji YD, Johnson DN, Faquin WC, Peacock ZS. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2024;53(2):122-126. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2023.06.001.
  51. 51
    Unicystic ameloblastoma: A retrospective study on recurrent factors from a single institute database. Yang R, Lin X, Zhang W, et al. Oral Diseases. 2024;30(3):1475-1482. doi:10.1111/odi.14477.
  52. 52
    Recurrence factors in pediatric ameloblastoma: Clinical features and a new classification system. Yang R, Tang Y, Zhang X, et al. Head & Neck. 2019;41(10):3491-3498. doi:10.1002/hed.25867.
  53. 53
    Bcl‐2 is a prognostic marker and its silencing inhibits recurrence in ameloblastomas. Kim JY, Kim J, Bazarsad S, et al. Oral Diseases. 2019;25(4):1158-1168. doi:10.1111/odi.13070.
  54. 54
    Sporadic versus syndromic keratocysts—Can we predict treatment outcome? A review of 102 cysts. Noy D, Rachmiel A, Zar K, Emodi O, Nagler RM. Oral Diseases. 2017;23(8):1058-1065. doi:10.1111/odi.12687.
  55. 55
    Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma
  56. 56
    Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma: A Systematic Review of the Cases Reported in the Literature. Chrcanovic BR, Gomes CC, Gomez RS. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020;49(6):709-716. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.11.004.
  57. 57
    Retrospective Analysis of Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma: Clinical Review. Sharma A, Ingole S, Deshpande M, Meshram D. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal. 2021;26(2):e246-e255. doi:10.4317/medoral.24152.
  58. 58
    A Case Report on Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma of Anterior Mandible. Sharma Lamichhane N, Liu Q, Sun H, Zhang W. BMC Research Notes. 2016;9:171. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1961-2.
  59. 59
    Exploring the Rarity: Clinical Insights and Histopathological Diversity of Hybrid Desmoplastic-Plexiform Ameloblastoma. Deorah DS, Gupta DS. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology. 2025;42(1):22-24. doi:10.1053/j.semdp.2024.12.001.
  60. 60
    Clinical and Radiologic Features of Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma. Li B, Long X, Wang S, Cheng Y, Chen X. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : Official Journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2011;69(8):2173-85. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2010.09.015.
  61. 61
    Desmoplastic Variant of Ameloblastoma: Report of Two Cases and Review of the Literature. Mintz S, Velez I. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2002;133(8):1072-5. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0331.
  62. 62
    Clinical and Histopathological Analyses of Desmoplastic Ameloblastoma. Takata T, Miyauchi M, Ito H, et al. Pathology, Research and Practice. 1999;195(10):669-75. doi:10.1016/S0344-0338(99)80057-0.
  63. 63
    Cystic Lesions of the Maxillomandibular Region: MR Imaging Distinction of Odontogenic Keratocysts and Ameloblastomas From Other Cysts. Minami M, Kaneda T, Ozawa K, et al. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996;166(4):943-9. doi:10.2214/ajr.166.4.8610578.
  64. 64
    Diagnosis and management of benign fibro‐osseous lesions of the jaws: a current review for the dental clinician. Mainville GN, Turgeon DP, Kauzman A. Oral Diseases. 2017;23(4):440-450. doi:10.1111/odi.12531.
  65. 65
    Targetable Alterations and Personalized Treatment in Ameloblastoma: Results From a Prospective Observational Precision Oncology Study. Hofmann E, Abu-Sirhan S, Elsholtz F, et al. NPJ Precision Oncology. 2026;10(1):217. doi:10.1038/s41698-026-01527-6.
  66. 66
    Unicystic Ameloblastoma: A Clinicopathologic Study of 33 Chinese Patients. Li TJ, Wu YT, Yu SF, Yu GY. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2000;24(10):1385-92. doi:10.1097/00000478-200010000-00008.
  67. 67
    Unicystic Ameloblastoma: Clinico-Radiological and Histopathological Correlation With Management. Chaudhary Z, Sharma P, S H, et al. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery : JPRAS. 2024;97:296-301. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.07.042.
  68. 68
    Unicystic Ameloblastoma Revisited: Comparison of Massachusetts General Hospital Outcomes With Original Robinson and Martinez Report. Chouinard AF, Peacock ZS, Faquin WC, Kaban LB. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : Official Journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2017;75(11):2369-2378. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.034.
  69. 69
    Maxillary Unicystic Ameloblastoma: A Case Report. Agani Z, Hamiti-Krasniqi V, Recica J, et al. BMC Research Notes. 2016;9(1):469. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2260-7.
  70. 70
    A Case Report of Multiple Histological Subtypes Ameloblastoma With Millet-Like Calcification. Gao X, Zhao J, Ma X, et al. Frontiers in Oncology. 2026;16:1801359. doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1801359.
  71. 71
    Comparison of Imaging Features of Intraosseous Jaw Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs and Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Sumer T, Sumer AP, Zengin AZ, Muğlali M, Abaci SH. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2026:00001665-990000000-03740. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000012531.
  72. 72
    Study Between Panoramic Radiography and Cone Beam-Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Ameloblastoma, Odontogenic Keratocyst, and Dentigerous Cyst. Cardoso LB, Lopes IA, Ikuta CRS, Capelozza ALA. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2020;31(6):1747-1752. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006538.
  73. 73
    Diagnosing the Most Common Odontogenic Cystic and Osseous Lesions of the Jaws for the Practicing Pathologist. Robinson RA. Modern Pathology : An Official Journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2017;30(s1):S96-S103. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2016.191.
  74. 74
    Ameloblastomas Mimicking Apical Periodontitis: A Case Series. Soimu G, Netto JD, Miranda ÁM, et al. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal. 2022;27(4):e397-e402. doi:10.4317/medoral.25338.
  75. 75
    Assessment of Ameloblastomas Using MRI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI. Asaumi J, Hisatomi M, Yanagi Y, et al. European Journal of Radiology. 2005;56(1):25-30. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.01.006.
  76. 76
    Usefulness of Contrast Enhanced-Mri in the Diagnosis of Unicystic Ameloblastoma. Konouchi H, Asaumi J, Yanagi Y, et al. Oral Oncology. 2006;42(5):481-6. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2005.10.001.
  77. 77
    Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Unilocular Cystic-Type Ameloblastomas With Homogeneously Bright High Signal Intensity on T2-Weighted or STIR MR Images. Hisatomi M, Yanagi Y, Konouchi H, et al. Oral Oncology. 2011;47(2):147-52. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.11.009.
  78. 78
    Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging of Unicystic Odontogenic Tumors for Differentiation of Unicystic Ameloblastomas From Keratocystic Odontogenic Tumors. Han Y, Fan X, Su L, Wang Z. Korean Journal of Radiology. 2018 Jan-Feb;19(1):79-84. doi:10.3348/kjr.2018.19.1.79.
  79. 79
    The Mutational Profile of Unicystic Ameloblastoma. Heikinheimo K, Huhtala JM, Thiel A, et al. Journal of Dental Research. 2019;98(1):54-60. doi:10.1177/0022034518798810.
  80. 80
    Prognostic Value of the Expression and Localization of Cell Proliferation and Apoptosis Markers in Unicystic Ameloblastomas. Vieira Costa R, Balbinot KM, da Silveira GCAR, et al. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):3856. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54132-7.
  81. 81
    The Effectiveness of Decompression in Ameloblastoma Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Samieirad S, Moradi A, Mirzaei A, et al. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery : Official Journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2026.03.015.
  82. 82
    Conservative Management of Unicystic Ameloblastoma: Long-Term Outcomes From a 26-Year Retrospective Study. Paiva GLA, Santos-Silva AR, Rocha AC. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2025.08.002.
  83. 83
    Clinical and demographic characteristics in ameloblastoma patients: A single-center study. Camadan Y, Bayram E, Kidi M, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2026;44(Suppl 16):e18146. doi:10.1200/JCO.2026.44.16_suppl.e18146.
  84. 84
    Ameloblastoma with mucous cells: A clinicopathological, BRAF mutation, and MAML2 rearrangement study. Xia RH, Zhang CY, Sun JJ, et al. Oral Diseases. 2020;26(4):805-814. doi:10.1111/odi.13281.
  85. 85
    BRAF ‐V600E expression correlates with ameloblastoma aggressiveness. Fregnani ER, Perez DE, Paes de Almeida O, et al. Histopathology. 2017;70(3):473-484. doi:10.1111/his.13095.
  86. 86
    BRAF V600E Mutation in Ameloblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mamat Yusof MN, Ch'ng ES, Radhiah Abdul Rahman N. Cancers. 2022;14(22):5593. doi:10.3390/cancers14225593.
  87. 87
    The evolving molecular characterisation, histological criteria and nomenclature of adenoid ameloblastoma as a World Health Organisation tumour type. Odell EW, Gomes CC, Thavaraj S. Histopathology. 2024;85(6):846-852. doi:10.1111/his.15270.
  88. 88
    Unicystic Ameloblastoma: Analysis of Surgical Management and Recurrence Risk Factors. Titinchi F, Brennan PA. The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 2022;60(3):337-342. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.07.022.
  89. 89
    A Radiologic-Pathologic Study of the Histopathologic Variants of Ameloblastomas and Their Proliferation Indices. Smit C, Robinson L, van Heerden MB, et al. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2024;138(3):403-413. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2024.03.007.
  90. 90
    Comparison of radiographic and MRI features of a root‐diverging odontogenic myxoma, with discussion of the differential diagnosis of lesions likely to move roots. Hisatomi M, Asaumi J, Konouchi H, et al. Oral Diseases. 2003;9(3):152-7. doi:10.1034/j.1601-0825.2003.01802.x.
  91. 91
    Ameloblastoma in the Maxillomandibular Region: MR Imaging. Minami M, Kaneda T, Yamamoto H, et al. Radiology. 1992;184(2):389-93. doi:10.1148/radiology.184.2.1620834.
  92. 92
    Interventions for the Treatment of Keratocystic Odontogenic Tumours. Sharif FN, Oliver R, Sweet C, Sharif MO. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;(11):CD008464. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008464.pub3.
  93. 93
    A Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Investigation of BRAF V600E Mutation in Ameloblastoma. Tun KM, Lapthanasupkul P, Iamaroon A, et al. PeerJ. 2025;13:e19137. doi:10.7717/peerj.19137.
  94. 94
    Frequency of BRAF V600E Immunoexpression in Ameloblastomas: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of 86 Cases in Latin America and Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Silveira FM, Schuch LF, Pereira-Prado V, et al. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal. 2024;29(4):e509-e516. doi:10.4317/medoral.26493.
  95. 95
    Frequency of BRAF V600E Mutation in a Group of Thai Patients With Ameloblastomas. Lapthanasupkul P, Laosuk T, Ruangvejvorachai P, Aittiwarapoj A, Kitkumthorn N. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2021;132(5):e180-e185. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2020.06.002.

Build an interactive differential →

Nearest neighbours

Expand to full map ↗

This lesion (ringed) among its most radiographically similar entries. Region and origin must overlap, so every neighbour is a genuine differential.

Drag to explore · Ctrl/⌘ + scroll to zoom · click a neighbour to recentre

← All lesions