Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Abstracts
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:1 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:3 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas - EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:4 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas -Sampling Techniques for Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:2 of 5
CMAS‡ - Pancreas- EUS-FNA Cytopathology (PSC guidelines) S1:5 of 5
Commentary
Correction
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series (CMAS), Editorial
CytoJournal Monograph Related Review Series: Editorial
Cytojournal Quiz Case
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Methodology
Methodology Article
Methodology Articles
Original Article
Pap Smear Collection and Preparation: Key Points
Quiz Case
Research
Research Article
Review
Review Article
Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
View Point
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Research Article
2025
:22;
93
doi:
10.25259/Cytojournal_108_2025

Establishing reference values for normal tongue squamous cells: An investigation of atypical changes

Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan.
Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan.
Author image

*Corresponding author: Eiji Mitate, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan. mitateeiji@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Mitate E, Oyama T, Sawai Y, Yamauchi Y, Demura T, Nanaumi H, et al. Establishing reference values for normal tongue squamous cells: An investigation of atypical changes. CytoJournal. 2025;22:93. doi: 10.25259/Cytojournal_108_2025

Abstract

Objective:

In cytological evaluation, atypical cells are often recognized by comparing them to presumed “normal” counterparts and judging the extent of morphological deviation. However, there is no clear or universally accepted definition of what constitutes a “normal cell,” and the assessment often relies on the examiner’s subjective judgment. This paper aims to establish the reference values for the cytological evaluation of the tongue mucosa by quantitatively analyzing nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratios (NCRs) and the clarity of the features of both nuclear and cytoplasm.

Material and Methods:

Cytological specimens from seven patients (three males and four females; average age, 62.4 years old) with tongue mucosal lesions were collected (with the Papanicolaou [Pap] stain). Acquired images were analyzed using ImageJ software. We quantified NCRs and brightness values (BV). Statistical analysis was performed using the Steel–Dwass test.

Results:

Significant differences in NCR and nuclear BV were observed across Pap Classes 1, 3, and 5. Reference values for normal cells were defined as a mean NCR of 0.031 ± 0.015 for Class 1, 0.074 ± 0.048 for Class 3, and 0.307 ± 0.170 for Class 5. The nuclear BV range widened with increasing Class: 68.90–145.16 (Class 1), 49.91–163.40 (Class 3), and 28.11–183.54 (Class 5).

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest that NCR and nuclear brightness can be used as objective criteria for evaluating tongue mucosal cells. For the detection and diagnosis of oral malignant disorders in early stage, the result is a kind of criterion.

Keywords

Anomaly detection
Artificial intelligence
Dysplasia
Oral cytology
Papanicolaou

INTRODUCTION

The oral cavity closely impacts social life, not only in chewing and swallowing but also in communication and appearance. The early detection and treatment of oral cancer, which are rare (fewer than six incidences/100,000 people) in Japan,[1] contribute to improving patients’ quality of life.

Brush cytology offers a straightforward diagnostic approach to distinguish benign from malignant conditions of the oral mucosa.[2] Cytological findings, such as alterations in the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio (NCR) and nuclear staining, are commonly reported in oral cytology. However, establishing objective criteria for these cytological features has been challenging because of the subjective nature of their interpretation.

With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), the ability to accurately distinguish between normal and abnormal cells has improved. However, the criteria used and perspectives from which these judgments have been made remain a black box. At the very least, defining the type of morphology of Class 1 cells, as diagnosed by human experts, the level of cytoplasmic brightness characteristic of Class 5 cells, and the typical ranges for brightness and intensity values is essential for the integration of AI into cytological diagnostics.

We therefore aimed to define parameters of normal cytological morphology. This study focused on the following eight criteria for cellular atypia: Anisokaryosis, nuclear pleomorphism, anisocytosis, and cellular pleomorphism. Increased NCR, atypical mitotic figures, prominent nucleoli, and hyperchromatic nuclei were also observed.[3]

Focusing on the nucleus, we observed a homogeneous appearance in normal cells, whereas malignant cells exhibited heterogeneous intensity. In this study, we also attempted to evaluate both the NCR and nuclear heterogeneity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cytological specimens from seven patients (three males and four females; average age, 62.4 years old) diagnosed with tongue mucosal diseases at our hospital between 2020 and 2023 were examined. Sixty cells from each Papanicolaou (Pap) Class 1, 3, and 5 were analyzed.

Laboratory procedures and data preparation

Oral exfoliative cytology was performed.[3,4] Cell samples were collected using the Rovers® Orcellex® Brush (made by Rovers Medical Devices B.V., Oss, The Netherlands), and the brush was rotated (10 times) during sample collection. Scraped brush was rapidly smeared onto glass slides. After fixed in 95% ethanol, Pap stain was performed.[5,6]

A Nikon ECLIPSE Si (made by Nikon Instruments Inc., Tokyo, Japan) with a ×40 lens (Nikon CFI E Plan achromatic, 0.65/0.65 mm; Tokyo, Japan) and an attached camera (Nikon Digital Sight 1000; Nikon Instruments Inc., Tokyo, Japan) were used to take photographs. The camera image sensor was a 1/2.8-inch color complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS). The CMOS measures 5.57 × 3.13 in area. The number of recorded pixels was 1920 × 1080, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) sensitivity was equivalent to that of ISO 150.

The microscope was installed in an environment without windows but with a fixed light source. Each imaging experiment was performed under identical conditions, using preset settings. Squamous epithelial cells that curled and overlapped with other cells or debris were excluded, because these factors can affect the brightness values (BV). Images were acquired at ×40 magnification and stored in tagged image file format. The area and brightness of the nuclei and cells within these images were quantified using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, USA).[7] Figure 1 shows the selection of the cell nuclear regions. BV ranging from 0 to 255 represents the gray scale, where zero corresponds to black and 255 to white. The BVs were calculated with red-green-blue (RGB) images. The RGBs were converted to BV using the formula BV = (R + G + B)/3.[8] The absence of units and the variability in BV reflect the heterogeneity observed within individual nuclei and cells.

Example of nuclear region outlining (Scale bar: 10 μm).
Figure 1:
Example of nuclear region outlining (Scale bar: 10 μm).

Patient consent

This study adhered to the ethical guidelines (established by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of JAPAN).[9] No active invasion or intervention by human participants was conducted for research purposes. Since certain cases utilized historical data, written informed consent was secured from the patients. As certain individuals may have faced difficulties in providing informed consent, only those capable of doing so provided written informed consent. In addition, participants who could not be contacted were offered the opportunity to opt out of the study. Specifically, a summary of the research was published on the institution’s website, thereby granting participants the right to freely decline participation.

Statistical analysis

Easy R (EZR) in R Commander version 1.63 is used for statistical analysis.[10] The Steel–Dwass test (SDT) with the significance level set at 0.05 is applied for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

NCRs

The distribution of the NCRs for each Class is presented in the box plots in Figure 2. The mean, five-number summary, and standard deviation of the NCRs for each Class are summarized in Table 1. Significant differences were observed in the NCRs among the Classes (P < 0.05). Reference values for normal cells were established: Mean NCR of 0.031 ± 0.015 for Class 1, 0.074 ± 0.048 for Class 3, 0.307 ± 0.170 for Class 5. In Class 1, half of the data for the N/C ratio fell between 0.02 and 0.036, while the BV of the nucleus ranged from 90.17 to 116.67, and those of the cytoplasm ranged from 126.68 to 151.51.

Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio (NCR) in each Class. The mean and five-number summary is shown in Table 1. As the Class number increases, the range of the NCRs widened. ✶P < 0.05.
Figure 2:
Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio (NCR) in each Class. The mean and five-number summary is shown in Table 1. As the Class number increases, the range of the NCRs widened. P < 0.05.
Table 1: Mean and five-number summary: Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, brightness values of the nucleus and the cytoplasm.
Class NCR BV of nucleus BV of cytoplasm
1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5
Max 0.097 0.247 0.780 145.16 163.40 183.54 172.66 179.77 155.07
75% 0.036 0.098 0.420 116.67 121.77 82.73 151.51 153.99 110.91
Mean 0.031 0.074 0.307 105.17 108.73 71.36 139.82 139.38 96.33
Median 0.029 0.060 0.315 104.90 106.39 69.17 141.27 141.23 97.09
25% 0.020 0.038 0.171 90.17 97.86 55.64 126.68 124.66 80.01
Min 0.009 0.017 0.016 68.90 49.91 28.11 99.10 91.25 31.65
Standard deviation 0.015 0.048 0.170

NCR: Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, BV: Brightness values

BV

The distributions of nuclear and cytoplasmic intensity values are illustrated by box plots in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The mean and five-number summaries for each Class are presented in Table 1.

Brightness values of the nucleus. The mean (x) and 5-number summary are shown in Table 1. As the Class number increased, the range of BV widened. ✶P < 0.05.
Figure 3:
Brightness values of the nucleus. The mean (x) and 5-number summary are shown in Table 1. As the Class number increased, the range of BV widened. P < 0.05.
Brightness values (BV) of the cytoplasm. As the Class number increased, the range of BV widened. ✶P < 0.05.
Figure 4:
Brightness values (BV) of the cytoplasm. As the Class number increased, the range of BV widened. P < 0.05.

For nuclear BV, about half of the data were found between 90.17 and 116.67 for Class 1, between 97.86 and 121.77 for Class 3, and between 55.64 and 82.73 for Class 5. Similarly, approximately half of the data for cytoplasmic BV were found between 126.68 and 151.51 for Class 1, between 124.66 and 153.99 for Class 3, and between 80.01 and 110.91 for Class 5. Regarding the range of maximum and minimum values, i.e., the range of possible values increased with Class number, the spread between maximum and minimum nuclear BV values expanded across Classes: 68.90–145.16 for Class 1, 49.91–163.40 for Class 3, and 28.11–183.54 for Class 5.

Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences in the intensity values between Classes for both nuclear and cytoplasmic measurements (P < 0.05). This result is consistent with the finding that there is little variation in the internal properties of the nuclei in Class 1; however, as atypicality increased, the nuclei became more concentrated, and darkly stained areas appeared, thus resulting in variation.

DISCUSSION

As a simple yet effective technique, cytology facilitates early detection of oral cancer and assessment of potentially malignant oral disorders. Furthermore, the accessibility of oral cytology in U.S. dental clinics has facilitated early cancer detection and improved patient outcomes.[2] From the Vital Statistics of Japan, National data indicate an upward trend in deaths from malignant neoplasms of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx, rising from 5,066 in 2000 to 8,586 in 2023.[11]

The adoption of oral cytology in Japan has been slower than the incorporation in other countries. Data from the National Cancer Center, Japan, revealed 23,671 new patients with oral and pharyngeal cancer in 2019 (16,463 men and 7,208 women), with 7,827 deaths (5,547 men and 2,280 women) in 2020. Furthermore, the 5-year relative survival rate from 2009 to 2011 was 63.5% (60.7% for men and 69.4% for women, including those with pharyngeal cancer), and the 5-year overall survival rates for tongue cancer were 93%, 77%, 61%, and 50% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively.[12]

Despite being easily examined visually and by palpation, the oral cavity is associated with persistently high oral cancer mortality due to delays in diagnosis. This is due to the lack of pathologists and reliance on the experience of diagnosticians. To address this problem, we believe that an AI-based diagnostic support system will contribute to reducing the workload and minimizing human error during the diagnosis of oral cancers.

The application of AI in pathology has advanced rapidly.[13] Although histopathology has been a primary focus,[14-16] AI-driven tools have also been adopted for cytology.[17] In particular, cervical cytology has benefited from the development of AI-based systems that employ supervised learning to detect abnormalities using large annotated image datasets.[18] We previously investigated the application of AI in oral cytology.[19,20] However, the creation of a sufficiently large and representative dataset for rare cancers, such as oral cancer (with an incidence rate below six/100,000 people), presents a significant challenge. Notably, the limited sample size has increased the risk of dataset bias.[21] Furthermore, our findings highlight the presence of background bias in the dataset.[22,23] The influence of these biases on performance metrics, such as the accuracy, of AI models cannot be overlooked. Consequently, the diagnostic performance of anomaly detection algorithms is limited for small datasets.

Previous investigations of oral epithelial cell morphology have yielded divergent results. While some studies have calculated the NCR using cellular and nuclear diameters,[24-27] our study employed a more precise approach that involved the measurement of cellular and nuclear areas.[28-30] Although diameter-based measurements of nuclei and cells are simple, they are susceptible to bias due to variations in the region of interest. Given the morphological diversity of cells, which often deviates from a perfectly circular shape, we posit that area-based comparisons provide a more robust metric.

Table 2 shows previous reports about NCR. While the classification of patients has varied across studies, normal cells have been reported to have NCRs within the range of 0.019–0.031.[28-33] In our study, half of the data for normal cells (Class 1) fell between 0.020 and 0.036, with a mean of 0.031 ± 0.015, which suggests that the reference range lies around these values. Similarly, for Class 3, which warrants biopsy, half of the data for the NCR fell between 0.038 and 0.098, with a mean of approximately 0.074 ± 0.048. A high NCR warrants prompt investigation and treatment planning for malignancies. Furthermore, focusing on the internal properties of the nucleus using BV, we found that 50% of the data for Class 1 fell within the range of 90.17–116.67, Class 3 within 97.86–121.77, and Class 5 within 55.64–82.73. Finally, the SDT revealed significant differences among the Classes, which suggests that classification based on nuclear BV is feasible [Table 3].

Table 2: Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratios reported in the literature.
Authors Classification Median Range/SD
Aktunc, et al.[28] 0.03 0.004–0.12
Caruntu, et al.[29] Superficial cell 0.01–0.10
Intermediate cell 0.05–0.43
Tumoral cell 0.36–2.34
Nivia, et al.[30] Group 1 (non-tobacco users) 0.019 ±0.019
Dagli, et al.[31] 0.02353 ±0.0035
Hashemipour, et al.[32] 0.021–0.028
Patel, et al.[33] Males 0.031 0.006
Females 0.031 0.005

SD: Standard deviation

Table 3: Results of the Steel–Dwass test. We identified statistically significant differences in all parameters except for nuclear brightness between Class 1 and Class 3.
Nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio BV of the nucleus BV of the cytoplasm
t P-value t P-value t P-value
Class 1: Class 3 6.597249 1.26E-10 0.9755806 0.592 7.559301 1.40E-13
Class 1: Class 5 10.57616 2.89E-14 8.3765543 3.10E-14 9.805033 3.09E-14
Class 3: Class 5 10.482788 2.68E-14 9.3685082 2.89E-14 3.796812 4.31E-04

BV: Brightness values

According to the 2017 World Health Organization classification, oral lesions are divided into five categories:

Negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancy; oral low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OLSIL) or low-grade dysplasia; oral high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OHSIL) or high-grade dysplasia; squamous cell carcinoma; and lesions of uncertain neoplastic potential.[33] Patients with negative findings are followed up in dental clinics, whereas those with OLSIL require biopsy confirmation and subsequent follow-up by oral and maxillofacial surgeons. OHSIL and squamous cell carcinoma require treatments similar to those used for cancer, such as excisional biopsies. Furthermore, nuclear features are particularly important in differentiating OLSIL from OHSIL.[34] This study was conducted to establish reference values for normal cells, while future work should focus on the further quantification of OLSIL and OHSIL.

SUMMARY

This study established quantitative reference values for normal oral epithelial cells based on NCRs and BV, and our findings may serve as useful indicators of cellular atypia. Furthermore, differences in the NCR and BV between normal and abnormal cells may be useful as indicators for the early detection of oral cancer.

The findings provide a basis for integrating AI methodologies into oral cytology practice. However, more research is necessary to update the diagnostic criteria and create more robust AI models. By addressing the limitations of the small dataset size and background bias, future studies will contribute to improving the accuracy and reliability of AI-assisted oral cytology.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data are not available.

ABBREVIATIONS

AI: artificial intelligence

BV: brightness values

EZR: Easy R

NCR: nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio

OHSIL: oral high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions

OLSIL: oral low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions

Pap: Papanicolaou

RGB: red-green-blue

SDT: Steel–Dwass test

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

EM: Conceptualized the study, wrote the initial draft of the manuscript; TD, HN, TM, SI, AN, and AT: Data curation and analysis; MH, SW, TO, SY, and HN: Statistical analyses. All authors directly accessed and verified all of the data. All authors subsequently read and revised the initial draft and read and approved the final version. All authors had access to all the data in the study and have final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. All authors are eligible for ICMJE authorship.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

A part of this paper was presented at the 26th International Conference on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (ICOMS 2025) on May 22–25, 2025, in Singapore. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing. Artificial Intelligence has not been used in the preparation of the manuscript.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Review Committee of Kanazawa Medical University (Approval number: C071) and adhered to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants (2024). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before their inclusion in the study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

EDITORIAL/PEER REVIEW

To ensure the integrity and highest quality of CytoJournal publications, the review process of this manuscript was conducted under a double-blind model (authors are blinded from reviewers and vice versa) through an automatic online system.

FUNDING: This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number: 25K13199), «2024 Research and Development Grant Program for Biotechnology and Information Technology» of the G-7 Scholarship Foundation, and «Project Mirai, Relay for Life project» of the Japan Cancer Society.

References

  1. . Japan: Cancer Information Service. National Cancer Center, Japan (Vital Statistics of Japan, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare). Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/data/dl/en.html [Last accessed 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . The utility of oral brush cytology in the early detection of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review. J Oral Pathol Med. 2018;47:104-16.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , et al. General rules for clinical and pathological studies on oral cancer (2nd edition) A synopsis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26:623-35.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Oral cytology revisited. J Oral Pathol Med. 2009;38:161-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , . Inception and development of the papanicolaou stain method. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:266-80.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. . Papanicolaou staining--a review. Microsc Acta. 1983;87:233-43.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Image processing with Image J. In: Biophotonics international. Vol 11. Massachusetts: LAURIN Publishing; . p. :36-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ImageJ: Analyze menu. Available from: https://imagej.net/ij/docs/menus/analyze.html [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ethical guidelines for medical and biological research involving human subjects. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Available from: https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/lifescience/bioethics/seimeikagaku_igaku.html [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. . Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. . Ministry of Health. Labour and Welfare of Japan. Available from: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search/files?stat_infid=000040098312 [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. . Atlas and guidelines cytopathological diagnosis. Vol 5. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan; . p. :18-79.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , . Artificial intelligence in diagnostic pathology. Diagn Pathol. 2023;18:109.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. . Israe: DeePathology Ltd. Available from: https://deepathology.ai [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. . Boston. USA: PathAI Inc; Available from: https://www.pathai.com [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. . USA: Indica Labs LLC. Available from: https://indicalab.com [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , . Segmentation, detection, and classification of cell nuclei in oral cytology samples stained with Papanicolaou stain. SN Comput Sci. 2021;2:285.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hologic announces first and only FDA-cleared digital cytology system - Genius™ digital diagnostics system. . Available from: https://s29.q4cdn.com/816090369/files/doc_news/hologic-announces-first-and-only-fda-cleared-digital-cytology-system--genius-digital-diagnostics-system-2024.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Jun 12]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , . Deep learning-based low-cost oral cytology In: Proceedings of international symposium on biomedical imaging (IEEE ISBI). .
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Application of the sliding window and Mask-RCNN methods for nuclear recognition in oral cytology. Diagn Pathol. 2022;17:62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. . Pathology in the era of generative AI. Lancet Digit Health. 2024;6:e536.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , . Background Subtraction Approach to Unsupervised Cell Segmentation: Toward Excluding Spurious Features in degraded cytology slides In: Proceedings of international symposium on biomedical imaging (IEEE ISBI). .
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , . Background removal for debiasing computer-aided cytological diagnosis. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2024;19:2165-74.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , . Morphometry of buccal mucosal cells in fluorosis--a new paradigm. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011;30:1761-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , , , . Exfoliative cytology for age estimation: A correlative study in different age groups. J Indian Acad Dent Spec Res. 2018;5:25-8.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , . Cytomorphometric analysis of cell diameter, nuclear diameter, and micronuclei for the detection of oral premalignant and malignant lesions. J Oral Biosci. 2011;53:158-69.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , . Cytomorphometric analysis of squames obtained from normal oral mucosa and oral leukoplakia and squamous cell carcinoma lesions. J Oral Pathol Med. 1998;27:83-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , , , . Cytomorphometric characteristics of buccal mucosal cells in Behçet's disease patients. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2016;2016:6035801.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , . Computerized morphometric discrimination between normal and tumoral cells in oral smears. J Cell Mol Med. 2005;9:160-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , . Comparative cytomorphometric analysis of oral mucosal cells in healthy individuals, tobacco users, oral leukoplakia, and oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Cytol. 2015;32:253-60.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , , , , , et al. Cytological and cytomorphometric characteristics of buccal mucosal cells from smokeless tobacco users. Diagn Cytopathol. 2017;45:976-82.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , , , , et al. Exfoliative cytology of the oral mucosa in smokers, opium addicts, and non-smokers: A cytomorphometric study. Arch Iran Med. 2013;16:725-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , . Quantitative cytomorphometric analysis of exfoliated normal gingival cells. J Cytol. 2011;28:66-72.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. , , , , . WHO classification of tumors In: Pathology and genetics of head and neck tumors (4th ed). Lyon, France: IARC Press; .
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections