The first step towards the prevention of cancer is to develop an in-depth understanding of tumourigenesis and the molecular basis of malignant transformation. What drives tumour initiation? Why do most benign tumours fail to metastasize? Oncogenic mutations, previously considered to be the hallmark drivers of cancers, are reported in benign cysts and tumours, including those that have an odontogenic origin. Despite the presence of such alterations, the vast majority of odontogenic lesions are benign and never progress to the stage of malignant transformation. As these lesions are likely to develop due to developmental defects, it is possible that they harbour quiet genomes. Now the question arises - do they result from DNA replication errors? Specific candidate genes have been sequenced in odontogenic lesions, revealing recurrent BRAF mutation in the case of ameloblastoma, KRAS mutation in adenomatoid odontogenic tumours, PTCH1 mutation in odontogenic keratocysts, and CTNNB1 (Beta-catenin) mutation in calcifying odontogenic cysts. Studies on these benign and rare entities might reveal important information about the tumorigenic process and the mechanisms that hinder/halt neoplastic progression. This is because the role of relatively common oncogenic mutations seems to be context dependent. In this review, each mutation signature of the odontogenic lesion and the affected signalling pathways are discussed in the context of tooth development and tumorigenesis. Furthermore, behavioural differences between different types of odontogenic lesions are explored and discussed based on the molecular alteration described. This review also includes the employment of molecular results for guiding therapeutic approaches towards odontogenic lesions.

Background: The erbB receptors and their ligands are involved in the pathogenesis and progression of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Although EGFR and Her-2 are frequently overexpressed in OSCC, few studies evaluated these proteins in saliva and their association with the tumor, which may represent potential usefulness in a clinical setting. Methods: The levels of EGFR, Her-2, and EGF were evaluated in saliva of 46 patients with OSCC before and after the surgical removal of the lesion, as well as in matched healthy controls. The relationship of salivary levels and EGFR and Her-2 immunoexpression in tumor samples with clinicopathological features was analyzed. Results: EGFR and Her-2 salivary levels did not show difference between to pre-surgery and control groups, however, both demonstrated an increase after surgical removal of the tumor. No association was detectable among receptor salivary levels, tissue expression and clinicopathological features. EGF levels in pre-surgery group were significantly lower when compared to the control group. Conclusions: EGFR and Her-2 were not considered to be valuable salivary tumor markers in OSCC, however, lower levels of EGF in saliva may suggest a higher susceptibility for OSCC development.