scholarly journals Psychological factors in oral mucosal and orofacial pain conditions

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 548-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad S. Alrashdan ◽  
Mustafa Alkhader
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Factors ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Orofacial Pain ◽  
Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Improve Treatment ◽  
Chronic Pain Conditions ◽  
Biomedical Treatment ◽  
Oral Lichen

ABSTRACTThe psychological aspects of chronic pain conditions represent a key component of the pain experience, and orofacial pain conditions are not an exception. In this review, we highlight how psychological factors affect some common oral mucosal and orofacial pain conditions (namely, oral lichen planus, recurrent aphthous stomatitis, burning mouth syndrome, and temporomandibular disorders) with emphasis on the significance of supplementing classical biomedical treatment modalities with appropriate psychological counseling to improve treatment outcomes in targeted patients. A literature search restricted to reports with highest relevance to the selected mucosal and orofacial pain conditions was carried out to retrieve data.

scholarly journals Oral lichen planus and its recent management: A review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Md Ashif Iqbal ◽  
Suraiya Yesmin ◽  
Fathimath Maaisha ◽  
Shaama Ibrahim ◽  
Puja Gotame
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Premalignant Lesions ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Dermatological Disease ◽  
Keywords Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen

Background: Oral Lichen Planus (OLP) is one of the most common dermatological disease which is present in the oral cavity. It is a chronic autoimmune, mucocutaneous disease that affects oral mucosa as well as the skin, genital mucosa and other sites of the body.Method: In this review study, various databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed Central, Hinari and Cochrane library were searched for articles with keywords lichen planus, oral lichen planus, premalignant lesions, management of Lichen planus. Articles were searched from January 2015 to 5th November 2020.Result: From the 34 articles obtained after reviewing the abstracts, most relevant 32articles were evaluated in this study.Conclusion: The etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, histopathological features, diagnosis and various management for oral lichen planus is discussed. This article also compares the existing and the most recent treatment modalities that are available throughout the world that are discussed in the literatures. However, more intensive studies must be carried out to find the best treatments which are cost-effective in the long run. Update Dent. Coll. j: 2020; 10 (2): 29-34

Psychological factors in oral lichen planus'

BDJ ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 173 (10) ◽  
pp. 331-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Humphris ◽  
E A Field
Keyword(s):  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Psychological Factors ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
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