Clinicopathological features of peripheral odontogenic fibromas in dogs and risk factors for their laboratory diagnosis

Abstract

ObjectivesTo explore clinicopathological features of peripheral odontogenic fibromas in dogs and risk factors for their diagnosis.Materials and MethodsData of cases with a histopathological diagnosis of peripheral odontogenic fibromas were obtained from a UK‐based diagnostic laboratory and retrospectively reviewed. Prevalence amongst all biopsy submissions was assessed using binomial tests and Clopper–Pearson intervals. Age at diagnosis was assessed using t‐test for independent samples. Lesion location, sex, and neuter status were assessed using χ2 and post hoc binomial tests. Breed odds ratios were calculated using univariable logistic regression modelling.ResultsThe prevalence of peripheral odontogenic fibromas amongst all biopsy submissions was 2.8% (1001 of 35,328, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7 to 3.0). The mean (sd) age was 8.1 (±2.7) years. The most affected quadrant was the rostral maxilla (40.1%). The ratio of maxillary to mandibular lesions was 1.3:1 (95% CI: 1.1 to 1.5), and for cases of multiple peripheral odontogenic fibromas the ratio of maxillary to mandibular lesions was 2.4:1 (95% CI: 1.1 to 5.6). Males had 1.2 times the odds of suffering of peripheral odontogenic fibromas compared to females (odds ratio [OR]: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.4). Neutering was associated with an increased risk of diagnosis (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.9). Breeds with increased odds of peripheral odontogenic fibromas compared to crossbreed dogs included boxers (OR: 3.78, 95% CI: 2.80 to 5.09), border terriers (OR: 3.21, 95% CI: 2.10 to 4.91) and Basset Hounds (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.58 to 6.44). Breeds with increased odds of multiple simultaneous peripheral odontogenic fibromas compared to crossbreed dogs included: Boxers (OR: 12.02, 95% CI: 7.13 to 20.24), border terriers (OR: 5.05, 95% CI: 2.32 to 11.43) and Staffordshire Bull terriers (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.33 to 4.41).Clinical SignificanceKnowledge of clinicopathological features and at‐risk breeds for peripheral odontogenic fibroma development can assist clinicians with making a diagnosis. The identification of risk factors provides targets for future research investigating peripheral odontogenic fibroma pathogenesis.