Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background: To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from one month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model.Results: Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77-2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 -1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 -1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups.Conclusions: Available articles regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence does not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to validate the findings.

Download Full-text

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-15960/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoqin Xiong ◽

Tiantian Xu ◽

Xinhong Wang ◽

Wenguang Qin ◽

Ting Yu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Risk Factor ◽

Lichen Planus ◽

Oral Lichen Planus ◽

Large Scale ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthcare Research ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Oral Lichen

Abstract Background : To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods : Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from one month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model. Results : Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77-2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 -1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 -1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups. Conclusions : Available articles regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence does not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to validate the findings.

Download Full-text

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-15960/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoqin Xiong ◽

Ting Yu ◽

Tiantian Xu ◽

Xinhong Wang ◽

Wenguang Qin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Risk Factor ◽

Lichen Planus ◽

Oral Lichen Planus ◽

Large Scale ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Fixed Effect Model ◽

Healthcare Research ◽

Oral Lichen

Abstract Background : To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods : Six electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, etc. were searched. Included studies are observational human studies written in English. Population of interest were those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. Follow-up time after implantation is from one month to 20 years. The quality of the included literature regarding risk of bias and methodology was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² tests. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model. Results : Of 139 literatures, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM; 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. Meta-analysis found no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77-2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 -1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 -1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups. Conclusions : Available literature regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence seems not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to test the findings. Keywords : dental implants; peri-implant diseases; oral lichen planus; systematic review; meta-analysis.

Download Full-text

Efficacy evaluation of photodynamic therapy for oral lichen planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-020-01260-x ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yuqing He ◽

Jiaxin Deng ◽

Yi Zhao ◽

Huiqian Tao ◽

Hongxia Dan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Methylene Blue ◽

Photodynamic Therapy ◽

Diode Laser ◽

Lichen Planus ◽

Oral Lichen Planus ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lesion Size ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Oral Lichen

Abstract Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a new option for oral lichen planus (OLP) management; however, there are different opinions on the efficacy of PDT for OLP. The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the efficacy of PDT in the treatment of OLP and compare PDT with steroid therapy. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the curative effect of PDT. Five electronic databases were searched, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and EBSCO up to 1 December, 2019. Random and fixed effects models for pooled estimates calculation were used and the Meta package of R was applied. Results Pooled estimates revealed that, after PDT, the lesion size decreased by 1.53 cm2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71–2.35) after PDT and the partial response (PR) was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65–0.85). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score decreased by 3.82 (95% CI: 2.80–4.85) and the Thongprasom sign score decreased by 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56–2.10) after PDT. Subgroup analyses revealed that the 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) was more effective than methylene blue (MB), with a PR of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80–0.91). The topical use of 5-ALA yielded a better response than gargling methylene blue. In terms of VAS, the diode laser showed a better clinical PR in the treatment of OLP. In terms of changes in lesion size, the efficacy of the semiconductor laser was higher than that of the diode laser. PDT had a similar efficacy to topical corticosteroids, as shown by pooled estimates of five randomised controlled trials with 139 lesions. Conclusion This systematic review indicates that PDT is an effective treatment modality for the management of OLP. PDT is as effective as topical corticosteroid in the treatment of OLP and could be used for cases resistant to steroids or when steroids are contraindicated.

Download Full-text