Figures index

From

Could Int-8 Receptors and VEGF be Considered as Potential Prognostic Markers in OSCC?

Omneya R. Ramadan, Maged H. El-Abany, Wafaa A. Awedat

International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018, 6(1), 6-11 doi:10.12691/ijdsr-6-1-2
  • Figure 1. a) Well-differentiated OSCC revealing intense cytoplasmic reaction to CXCR1 in the malignant epithelial cells forming the keratin pearl (x400). b) Cell nests in a moderately differentiated OSCC exhibiting a strong reaction to CXCR1 in both the cytoplasm and nucleus (total cell reactivity). (x400). c) Poorly differentiated OSCC revealing positive immunostaining to CXCR1. (x400). d) Poorly differentiated OSCC revealing intense cytoplasmic and nucleus CXCR1 immunoreaction. Notice: the mitotic figures. (x1000)
  • Figure 2). a) Well differentiated OSCC showing keratin and epithelial pearls invading muscle fibers. The malignant epithelial cells are positively reactive to CXCR2 (x200). b) Cell nests in a moderately differentiated OSCC exhibiting a strong reaction to CXCR2 in both cytoplasm and nucleus (total cell reactivity). (x200). c) & d) Poorly differentiated OSCC showing cytoplasmic and nuclear reaction to CXCR2 (x400). e) & f) Higher magnification of the fields revealing normal and abnormal mitotic figures (x1000)
  • Figure 3. a) Poorly differentiated OSCC showing cytoplasmic immunoreactivity to VEGF.(x400). b) Poorly differentiated OSCC showing cytoplasmic immunoreactivity to VEGF. Note the abnormal mitotic figures. (x400). c) Moderately differentiated OSCC showing intense reaction to VEGF in the cytoplasm of malignant cells. (x400). d) Moderately differentiated OSCC cell nests showing intense cytoplasmic immunoreactivity to VEGF. (x400)
  • Figure 4. Immunoreactivity of CXCR1 in different histopathological grade
  • Figure 5. Comparison between CXCR1& CXCR2 in OSCC cases