Response to the Letter Entitled “Archegonous Cystic Odontoma Is Not Necessarily Primordial” by Ide et al.

Excerpt

We welcome the commentary written by Ide et al. [1] on our paper published in the journal [2]. Cases like ours and the one presented by our colleagues from Japan bring forth thoughts and individual opinions not only on unusual odontogenic lesions but also uncommon microscopic observations made in otherwise conventional odontogenic pathologic processes. The example included and briefly discussed by Ide et al. [1] features histopathologic findings that are uncommon in the wall of dentigerous cysts. Although our example was not associated with an impacted tooth [2], we agree with Ide et al. [1] that their case includes most of the histopathologic findings seen in our case. However, in the absence of an impacted tooth and the presence of an epithelial cystic lining that could have been interpreted as ameloblastomatous, the classification of the lesion was initially, in the year 2001, problematic. This problem in classification was evident 14 years later when our case was presented at the Seminar of the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology [3]. A wide variety of interpretations were received by anonymous oral pathologists and are summarized in Table 1. The senior author of our paper with the use of immunohistochemistry for calretinin supported the argument against the diagnosis of unicystic ameloblastoma, which may have had treatment consequences for the patient. …