Search

Introduction: Central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws is not a common lesion. Only five cases are reported in the mandibular condyle. Observation: A 25 year-old male presented with preauricular swelling and a premature occlusal contact on the molars. The lesion had radiological features of aggressiveness and a high metabolic uptake. Initial biopsy was misleading. The lesion was treated surgically by resection. Discussion: Histologically, CGCG are very similar to other giant cell lesions such as GCT (Giant cell Tumor) or BTH (brown tumor of hyperparathyroidism). The standard treatment is surgical either by curettage or resection. Only 6 cases have been described in the literature, including this one. The diagnosis is difficult, relying on a bundle of clinical, radiological and histological arguments. However, radical surgery should be performed to avoid the tumor recurrence. The genetic mutations associated with CGCG (notably TRPV4 and RAS pathway) may explain why this tumor is mostly found in the dental part of the jaws and only rarely in the mandibular condyle.

In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.