Traumatic eosinophilic granuloma(TEG) of the oral mucosa is considered to be a reactive benign condition. Histology revealed diffuse mixed infiltration of eosinophil and atypical mononuclear cells. We have described an additional case of TEG simulating oral malignany where immunohistochemistry revealed the presence of CD30+ large atypical cells. The CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder(LPD) of oral mucosa, although rare, has also been described. In this case, there was scattered distribution of CD30+ cells. After the incisional biopsy, the remainder of oral lesion got disappeared progressively and there is no sign of recurrence. We believe that this case could be a reactive rather than neoplastic process, and it has been suggested that a subset of TEG could be included within the spectrum of CD30+ LPDs. Therefore, oral surgeon and pathologists’ awareness of this condition will reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis and inappropriate aggressive treatment for this benign, self-limiting lesion.

T:raumat ic eosinophili c granuloma(TEG) of the oral mucosa is considered to be a reactive benign lesion. which commonly manifests as an ulcer with elevated and indurated borders Clinically, this lesion simulates a malignant tumor. Histology shows a diffuse. dense, polyrnorphic, and eosinophil - rich cellular infiltra te. which extends deeply into the underlying soft t issues. A major constituent of infil trates is a population of mitotically active‘ la rge‘ atypi cal mononuclear cells. Immunohistologic evaluation of the large atypical cells has suggested a myofibroblastic 01' his tiocytic ol'igin. However, recent reports have shown that these cells are positive 1'01' CD30 antigen and it has been s llggested tha t a subset of TEG cOllld be included within the spectrum of CD30+ lymphoprolifer ative disorders. We have described 2 patients who had oral mllcosal lesions with features of TEG. ln patient 1. the lesiona l cells expressed CD3 .. CD43, LCA. Interestingly, the large cells were strongly CD30 positive. bl1t nega tive for CD68, CD45Ro‘ CD56, CD20. This case was interpreted as a CD30+ Iymphoproliferative disorder. In pa tient 2‘ t he la rge cell s showed strong posit ive for CD68, hut negative for CD30 The small lymphocytic cells ex prerssed CD3 This case was interpreted as an atypical histiocytic granuloma. Therefore, TEGs inclllde atypical histiocytic granllloma a long with the CD30+ lymphoid lesions. These findings suggested that TEG w0111d be a hete rogenous category of oral mucosal di sorders