| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 2 | Page : 91-94 |
|
|
Comparative evaluation of centrifuged liquid-based cytology method over conventional brush cytology in normal oral mucosa
M Arunachalam1, Nandhini Gunasekaran2, K Rajkumar2, Dinesh Kumar Thayalan2, J Dinakaran3, R Bharanidharan4
1 Department of Oral Pathology, Karpaga Vinayaga College of Dental Sciences, Maduranthakam, Chennai, India
2 Department of Oral Pathology, SRM Dental College, Chennai, India
3 Department of Oral Pathology, Adhiparasakthi Dental College and Hospital, Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu, India
4 Private Practice, Indira's Dental Clinic, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nandhini Gunasekaran
Plot No. 1110, 2nd Main Road, Poombuhar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai - 600 099, Tamil Nadu
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/srmjrds.srmjrds_20_21
|
|
|
Introduction: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a new monolayer slide preparation method introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) smears which is used in cancer screening. The study was aimed to compare the efficacy of modified technique, centrifuged LBC (CLBC) with that of conventional brush cytology in normal oral mucosa. Materials and Methods: Two smears were obtained from 100 cases of normal mucosa using a cytobrush. One smear was spread on to the slide by conventional technique, and the other smear was prepared by CLBC. Regular PAP staining was done for both the smears. Both the smears were evaluated for cellularity, cell distribution, cellular overlapping, cell elongation, and cellular background and were graded using the grading criteria. Mann–Whitney U-test was used, and P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean score of the criterias was found to be more desirable in CLBC than conventional technique, but there was no statistical significance found. Conclusions: LBC offers a significant advantage over conventional smear preparation in most of the criteria to advocate its use for routine diagnostic and mass screening procedures.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
Search Pubmed for