Oral lichen planus. A double-blind comparison of treatment with betamethasone valerate aerosol and pellets

BDJ ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 144 (3) ◽  
pp. 83-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
J S Greenspan ◽  
C M Yeoman ◽  
S M Harding
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Betamethasone Valerate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Oral Lichen

scholarly journals Salivary Antioxidant Status in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus: Correlation with Clinical Signs and Evolution during Treatment withChamaemelum nobile

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asta Tvarijonaviciute ◽  
Cristina Aznar-Cayuela ◽  
Camila P. Rubio ◽  
Fernando Tecles ◽  
Jose J. Ceron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antioxidant Capacity ◽  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Antioxidant Status ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Total Antioxidant Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reducing Ability ◽  
Chamaemelum Nobile ◽  
Oral Lichen

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory mucocutaneous disease, which manifests as a succession of outbreaks. OLP was associated with salivary oxidative stress. Randomized, double blind, parallel-group study was performed. The sample consisted of 55 clinically and histopathologically diagnosed OLP patients. Twenty-six patients were treated with 2%Chamaemelum nobilegel and 29 with a placebo. Nonstimulated (basal) saliva was collected on the first day of the study and 4 weeks later. Salivary total antioxidant status (TAS) was evaluated by four different methods: two TAC (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid) equivalent antioxidant capacity methods (TAC1 and TAC2), cupric reducing antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC), and ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP). At baseline (T1), no statistically significant differences were detected in any of the TAS analytes between the two groups of patients. After four weeks of treatment, a statistically significant increase was detected in FRAP in the placebo group (0.323 [0.090–0.467] versus 0.406 [0.197–0.848] mmol/g⁎10-3) (P<0.05). Significant correlations were observed between pain and drainage and TAC1, CUPRAC, and FRAP and between xerostomia and the TAC1, TAC2, CUPRAC, and FRAP. The results of the present study showed that in patients with OLP increases of TAS in saliva are associated with increase in pain and xerostomia and decrease in drainage, suggesting a worsening condition of the patient. The use ofChamaemelum nobilegel would be recommended for disease stabilization.

scholarly journals A Randomized Placebo-controlled Double Blind Clinical Trial of Quercetin for Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Amirchaghmaghi ◽  
Zahra Delavarian ◽  
Mehrdad Iranshahi ◽  
Mohammad Taghi Shakeri ◽  
Pegah Mosannen Mozafari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Oral Lichen

Efficacy of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in Lichen Planus

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Samycia ◽  
Andrew N. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Calcineurin Inhibitors ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Tacrolimus Ointment ◽  
Topical Tacrolimus ◽  
Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors ◽  
Oral Lichen

Background: Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been studied in many skin disorders, including lichen planus. Objective: To evaluate published reports of the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in lichen planus. Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid/Cochrane, and Embase using the keywords “tacrolimus,” “pimecrolimus,” “topical calcineurin inhibitors,” and “lichen planus.” Results: We examined 5 double-blind studies, 1 investigator-blinded study, 10 open prospective studies, 6 retrospective studies, and 28 case reports evaluating tacrolimus or pimecrolimus for oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous lichen planus. Conclusions: Strong evidence (double-blind and open studies) supports the use of topical tacrolimus ointment in oral lichen planus, with efficacy at least equal to topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment. Treatment of oral lichen planus with topical tacrolimus ointment can result in demonstrable blood tacrolimus levels, but without clinically significant adverse events. Strong evidence (double-blind and open studies) supports the use of topical pimecrolimus 1% cream in oral lichen planus, with efficacy equal to that of topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% paste. For vulvovaginal lichen planus, pimecrolimus was superior to placebo in one double-blind study, and tacrolimus was effective in open studies. Only case reports support the efficacy of topical calcineurin inhibitors in cutaneous lichen planus.

Topical application of morphine for wound healing and analgesia in patients with oral lichen planus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 305-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Zaslansky ◽  
Cynthia Schramm ◽  
Christoph Stein ◽  
Claas Güthoff ◽  
Andrea Maria Schmidt-Westhausen
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Topical Application ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Oral Lichen

Efficacy of topical Aloe vera in patients with oral lichen planus: a randomized double-blind study

2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 735-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Salazar-Sánchez ◽  
P. López-Jornet ◽  
F. Camacho-Alonso ◽  
M. Sánchez-Siles
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Aloe Vera ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Oral Lichen

scholarly journals Miconazole as adjuvant therapy for oral lichen planus: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. 1336-1341 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Lodi ◽  
M. Tarozzi ◽  
A. Sardella ◽  
F. Demarosi ◽  
L. Canegallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Oral Lichen

scholarly journals Topical NAVS naphthalan for the treatment of oral lichen planus and recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A double blind, randomized, parallel group study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249862
Author(s):  
Ana Andabak Rogulj ◽  
Iva Z. Alajbeg ◽  
Vlaho Brailo ◽  
Ivana Škrinjar ◽  
Ivona Žužul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis ◽  
Aphthous Stomatitis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Lesion Diameter ◽  
Group A ◽  
Oral Lichen

Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of non-aromatic very rich in steranes (NAVS) naphthalan in the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP) and recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between NAVS and topical steroids in the treatment of OLP and RAS. Methods The study consisted of two sub-trials conducted as randomized, double-blind controlled studies: first included OLP patients and second patients with RAS. Patients received either NAVS or 0.05% betamethasone dipropionate. Primary outcomes were activity score (OLP patients), No of lesions and lesion diameter (RAS patients) and pain intensity (VAS) while secondary outcome included the impact of the disease on quality of life assessed by Oral health impact profile (OHIP 14). Results No significant differences in terms of OLP clinical signs (p = 0.84, η2 = 0.001) and responses on the OHIP-14 (p = 0.81, η2 = 0.002) or on VAS (p = 0.14, η2 = 0.079) between NAVS and betamethasone groups were observed. In RAS patients, no significant differences between the groups in terms of lesion number (at days 3 and 5, p = 0.33 and p = 0.98, respectively), lesion diameter (days 3 and 5, p = 0.24 and p = 0.84, respectively) were observed. However, in NAVS group a significant reduction of lesions diameter was observed on the 3rd day, while in betamethasone group a significant reduction in lesions diameter was evident only after the 5th day. No significant differences in VAS (p > 0.05) and the OHIP-14 (p > 0.05) between groups were found. Conclusion No evidence of differences between the two compared interventions was found. Registration Retrospective registration of this trial was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov on September 30, 2016; trial registration number: NCT02920658. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02920658?term=NAVS&draw=2&rank=4.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document