## 3 Discussion  
The occurrence of various OTs varies greatly. Their shape, size, location, and growth in time require not only some diagnostic steps but also great individualism in each case of bigger lesions. This situation is mostly associated with the scope of the surgical approach and the degree of excised structures. Small defects might heal quite well on their own, if surrounding bone walls are present, which enables a good final outcome from healing. Larger defects that might cause some defects in the bone anatomy, its function, and morphology might require one of the known regenerative procedures. Furthermore, the occurrence of both maxillary and mandible bones of different OT might result in a different approach and excision of tumor resection. In some cases, the scope of the first surgical approach might greatly influence later tumor reoccurrence or even malignant transformation reoccurring and not fully healed lesions [9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29]. Figure 8: Control panoramic radiograph and completely healed bone after treatment. Figure 9: Enlarged visualization of the entirely healed bony defect in the right mandibular angle. Courtesy of Dr. [PERSON]. The aggressiveness of AFO is still unclear; however, its malignant transformation is possible [22; 23; 24; 25]. If present, a surgical removal should be performed; however, surgical margins and radicalism of the procedure still are discussable [29]. Authors confirm that because of its great similarity to other odontogenic tumors AFO can be easily misdiagnosed [30; 31]. [PERSON] et al. conclude that AFO can be easily misdiagnosed with AF (ameloblastic fibroma) or AFD (ameloblastic fibrodentinoma) [26]. However, today because of the new WHO classification of OT, the presence of AFO has been moved towards the odontoma section, which also resulted in changes in its treatment, such as enucleation with curettage, and rarely osteotomy in bigger lesions [20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30]. Treatment modalities are mostly related to conservative approaches such as enucleation and curettage since AFO is a non-aggressive lesion. Unlike AF (ameloblastic fibroma), which requires a more radical approach, AFO is not likely to suspect any malignant transformation towards AFS (ameloblastic fibrosarcoma); however, a rare possibility is also possible. This is yet another reason to separate AF from AFO/AFD and their potential malignant formation. Treatment of choice is conservative, In well-defined lesions with clear borders, enucleation with or without curettage is enough. Destructive lesions without clear borders might even require surgical resection, marginectomies, or even in some extreme cases maxillectomies/mandibulectomies. Many papers describe possible approaches, with a great correspondence with the shape, size, location, and cortical bone loss, and are focused on [10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36]:  
* Conservative approach with enucleation alone
* Conservative approach with enucleation and bone curettage
* Surgical curettage with bony cavity osteotomy
* Surgical marginectomy in bigger lesions with/without reconstruction;  
Regardless of the type of uses treatment, re-occurrence is rare [22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36]. The main question should be focused on the type of possible restoration and defect support to ensure adequate healing and bone regeneration. Bigger lesions might require some bone grafting protocols to restore some bone, while smaller lesions might heal on their own. Fresh-frozen allogenic bone grafts or PRF with xenograft bone materials seem to have good healing potential in defects where the cortical walls tend to improve bone stability [35; 36]. A recent meta-analysis by [PERSON] et al. on PRF usage after third molar surgery highlights that it reduces some postoperative complications, but does not prevent all of them; however, it improves pain relief and swelling after lower third molar removal [37].