O ameloblastoma é um tumor odontogênico benigno, porém agressivo, de origem epitelial, constituindo cerca de 1-3% de todos os tumores e cistos da mandíbula. Apresenta crescimento lento e persistente, localizado na maior parte dos casos na área de ramo de mandíbula e ocasionalmente associado com terceiros molares inclusos. As lesões são caracterizadas por uma infiltração agressiva para o tecido adjacente e as células tumorais restantes podem levar a morbidades múltiplas de recorrência. Dessa forma, pode ocorrer uma elevada taxa de recorrência local se não for adequadamente removido. Este artigo relata um caso de ameloblastoma multicístico previamente tratado com terapia conservadora que resultou no insucesso do tratamento e recidiva da lesão após oito anos. O exame clínico demonstrou extensa reabsorção óssea na região de hemimandíbula direita. Foi realizada biópsia incisional e exame histopatológico para confirmação diagnóstica. O tratamento proposto foi a ressecção total em bloco envolvendo além de hemimandíbula direita, a região de elementos dentários 31 e 32 com margem de segurança de dois centímetros. O protocolo radical cirúrgico com boa margem de segurança deve ser a opção para prevenir a recidiva destes tumores agressivos.

Ameloblastoma is an aggressive, benign odontogenic tumor of epithelial origin. Approximately 1-3% of all tumors and cysts of the maxillary bones are ameloblastomas. They grow at a slow but persistent rate and are mainly located in the ramus of the mandible. They are occasionally associated with the presence of an impacted third molar. Ameloblastomas are characterized by aggressive infiltration of the surrounding tissue. There may be a high local recurrence rate when the tumor is not properly removed, due to remaining tumor cells. This article reports a case of a multicystic ameloblastoma that had been previously treated with conservative therapy which failed and resulted in recurrence eight years later. Clinical examination showed extensive bone resorption in the right hemi-mandible region. Incisional biopsy and histopathological examination was carried out to confirm the diagnosis. The proposed treatment was total en bloc resection involving the right hemi-mandible, and the region of central and lateral left incisors with a two-centimeter safety margin. Radical surgical protocol with wide margin of safety must be adopted in order to prevent the recurrence of these aggressive tumors.

This study aims to compare the in vivo effect of a desensitizing therapy associated with a restorative technique for the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) in non-carious lesions. The sample consisted of 68 teeth with moderate or severe dentin hypersensitivity in 17 individuals (one tooth per quadrant). The sensitivity levels of the teeth were scored, and the teeth were randomly distributed into four groups: T1 – desensitizing gel applied once per week until remission of pain; T2 – desensitizing gel applied once per week followed immediately by restoration with resin composite (Filtek Z250, 3M Espe); T3 – desensitizing gel once per week until remission of pain and then restoration with resin composite; and T4 - restoration with resin composite. Dentin hypersensitivity was assessed at 0, 7, 30, 90 and 180 days. The Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney (p< 0.05) tests were used to compare the treatments. The mean baseline CDH scores were T1 - 2.41, T2 - 2.41, T3 - 2.47, and T4 - 2.70 (p > 0.05). At seven and 180 days, the mean CDH scores were as follows: T1 - 1.47/0.65, T2 - 1.35/0.71, T3 - 0.71/0.53, and T4 - 1.12/0.59, all of which were significantly lower (p< 0.001) than the baseline scores. The scores at 30, 90 and 180 days were not significantly different when compared to the score of the previous period. At 180 days, CDH scores were similar among groups (p> 0.05). Teeth with moderate or severe hypersensitivity that required a filling responded similarly regardless of whether the desensitizing procedure was carried out prior to the filling.