• T D Daley, N O Nartey, and G P Wysocki.
• Department of Pathology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
• Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1991 Aug 1; 72 (2): 196-9.

AbstractThere is some disagreement about the validity of the clinical term "pregnancy tumor." On the basis of its clinical presentation and histologic appearance, some authors believe that it simply represents a pyogenic granuloma (PG), whereas others believe that the lesion is unique because of the apparent influence of female sex hormones. In an attempt to resolve this problem, a study was undertaken to determine whether a significant correlation exists between PG and pregnancy, and whether the clinical term applies to the other epulides. The study involved 42 epulides diagnosed clinically as pregnancy tumors. A chi-square analysis comparing 32 of these lesions with 757 epulides occurring in women revealed a significant disproportion in the number of PGs, whereas the number of peripheral ossifying fibromas and peripheral giant cell granulomas were within the expected range. Very few focal fibrous hyperplasias (fibromas) were diagnosed as pregnancy tumors. Clinical and behavioral features of pregnancy tumors diagnosed microscopically as PGs were also analyzed. The results indicated that the diagnosis of pregnancy tumor is valid clinically in describing a PG occurring in pregnancy, because it describes a distinct lesion not on the basis of histologic features but on etiology, biologic behavior, and treatment protocol.

30 keywords...

hide…