Search

Paget disease is an intraepithelial neoplastic proliferation, commonly occurring in the breast and apocrine‐rich areas, often associated with an underlying internal malignancy. Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) of the oral cavity is exceedingly rare, with only eight reported cases, four of which were associated with an underlying internal malignancy. Here, we report a case of oral EMPD involving the buccal mucosa and gingiva of an 81‐year‐old male with no known underlying internal malignancy. The Paget cells were positive for CK7, CK20, CAM5.2, and androgen receptor, but negative for SOX10 and p63. The immunophenotype, association with internal malignancies, and treatment approaches for oral EMPD are reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Oral lichen planus is a chronic and potentially malignant disorder of oral mucosa. Corticosteroids are used as first-line therapy for oral lichen planus patients; however, they have many side effects. Platelet concentrates (platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin) are autologous bioactive materials. This systematic review investigated the effects of autologous platelet concentrates compared to topical steroids in treating symptomatic oral lichen planus patients. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis guidelines were observed for article selection. For the pooling of studies, meta-analysis using Standardized Mean Differences by random effects model was carried out to estimate summary effect sizes for the treatment of oral lichen planus. Results A total of six studies, incorporating 109 oral lichen planus patients, were involved. Both treatment modalities showed a statistically significant improvement in the outcome parameters (lesion size, pain score, Thongprasom score) from the baseline to the end of treatment and further to the follow-up visits. There was no significant difference in the pooled estimate SMD of pain decline in patients of the two groups (SMD = 0.17 (95% CI: -0.47 to 0.81); I2 = 63.6%). The SMD of Thongprasom score in patients receiving autologous platelet concentrates was lower than the corticosteroid groups, with no significant effect size (SMD= -2.88 (95% CI: -5.51 to -0.25); I2 = 91.7%). Therefore, there was no statistically significant difference between the autologous platelet concentrates and topical steroids regarding pain and clinical score. Conclusion Autologous platelet concentrates, and topical steroids decreased the size of lesions, Thongprasom scale, and pain in oral lichen planus patients, but the difference between the two treatments was not statistically significant. Thus, autologous platelet concentrates could be considered as an alternative treatment to topical steroids.

Background: Oral lichen planus is a chronic and potentially malignant disorder of oral mucosa. Corticosteroids are used as first-line therapy for oral lichen planus patients; however, they have many side effects. Platelet concentrates (platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin) are autologous bioactive materials. This systematic review investigated the effects of autologous platelet concentrates compared to topical steroids in treating symptomatic oral lichen planus patients. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis guidelines were observed for article selection. For the pooling of studies, meta-analysis using Standardized Mean Differences by random effects model was carried out to estimate summary effect sizes for the treatment of oral lichen planus. Results: A total of six studies, incorporating 109 oral lichen planus patients, were involved. Both treatment modalities showed a statistically significant improvement in the outcome parameters (lesion size, pain score, Thongprasom score) from the baseline to the end of treatment and further to the follow-up visits. There was no significant difference in the pooled estimate SMD of pain decline in patients of the two groups (SMD = 0.17 (95% CI: -0.47 to 0.81); I2 = 63.6%). The SMD of Thongprasom score in patients receiving autologous platelet concentrates was lower than the corticosteroid groups, with no significant effect size (SMD= -2.88 (95% CI: -5.51 to -0.25); I2 = 91.7%). Therefore, there was no statistically significant difference between the autologous platelet concentrates and topical steroids regarding pain and clinical score. Conclusion: Autologous platelet concentrates, and topical steroids decreased the size of lesions, Thongprasom scale, and pain in oral lichen planus patients, but the difference between the two treatments was not statistically significant. Thus, autologous platelet concentrates could be considered as an alternative treatment to topical steroids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The association of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and Human Syncytial Virus (HSV) infection with inflammatory and potentially malignant disorders of the oral cavity (OPMD) is unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to stablish the expression of the p16INK4A and HSV proteins, to test potential correlation between those parameters in biopsies from clinically diagnosed oral lesions. Methods Immunochemical analysis of 211 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks from 211 individuals was provided. The clinical diagnosis included in the research were Oral lichen planus (N = 30), Oral Leukoplakia (N = 13) Mucocele (N = 25), Erosion/ulceration/ inflammation of mucosa (N = 8), Overgrowth of mucosa (N = 135). Results Two hundred eleven analyzed FFPE samples resulted with the median age of 58.5 years (the average age 54.0 years and SD ± 17 years). The female/male ratio was 2.3 (69.7% vs 30.3% respectively). All the samples positive for HSV also expressed p16INK4A (p = 0.000), that’s showed various levels of association with the diverse clinical diagnosis reaching the higher level in OM 49.1% (29 positive samples) and OLP 30.5% (18). p16INK4A was associated with OLP at 30.5% (18), and fibroma 30.5%. HSV expression was mostly present in fibroma at 47.6% (10 positive samples). Conclusion HSV and p16INK4A positivity in relation to diagnosis of the biopsies showed statistically most often p16INK4A in OLP and fibroma. The results of co-expression of p16INK4A and HSV in mucocele and fibroma in oral mucosa suggest a cooperation between the molecular alterations induced by these two viruses. Squamous papilloma samples positive for p16INK4A were also positive for HSV, suggesting that the putative pro-oncogenic action of HSV could be an early event.

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis in order to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the prevalence and magnitude of the association of hypertension in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published before May 2022, not restricted by publication language or date. The methodological quality and risk of bias of primary‐level studies were critically assessed. Meta‐analyses were performed, as well as meta‐regression, stratified, sensitivity and small‐study effects analyses, a Galbraith (radial) plot, and trial sequential analysis. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE system. Results: 104 studies, including 16,587 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The results show that patients who suffer from OLP have a high prevalence of hypertension (PP = 24.17%, 95% CI = 21.45–27.00), with a low quality of evidence. A significant association between hypertension and oral lichen planus was also reported (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.01–1.63, p = 0.04), showing a moderate quality of evidence. Conclusions: Patients with OLP could be at an increased risk of suffering from hypertension which is probably due to multiple factors. Healthcare practitioners involved in OLP management should be aware of this comorbidity in order to apply suitable measures and make referrals if hypertension is suspected, although further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The a im of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of Nigella sativa (75% v/v) cream and clobetasol propionate (0.05% w/w) gel for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP). Study design: Sixty clinically diagnosed cases of OLP were stratified into moderate cases or severe cases based on burning sensation before getting allocated to group I receiving Nigella sativa cream and group II receiving clobetasol propionate gel, two times a day for 45 days. Patients were examined every 15 days for a change in burning sensation and size of the lesion using the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and a standard Vernier caliper, respectively. Statistical tests including Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Friedman's, Dunn's post hoc, unpaired t, paired t, one-way repeated measures ANOVA, and Bonferroni's post hoc were applied. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in the burning sensation as well as the size of the lesion in both groups (P ≤ 0.05). There was an 87.8% (moderate cases) and 85.7% (severe cases) reduction in the mean NRS scores on the 45th day in group I when compared to the 96.5% (moderate cases) and 93.48% (severe cases) in group II. There was a 92.9% (moderate cases) and 90.7% (severe cases) reduction in the size of the lesion in group I when compared to the 92.6% (moderate cases) and 93.1% (severe cases) in group II. Conclusion: The topical application of Nigella sativa cream was effective and comparable to clobetasol propionate 0.05% gel in the management of OLP, without any side effects. Hence, this study recommends the use of topical Nigella sativa cream therapy in the management of OLP. Clinical relevance: The current mainstay of treatment for OLP is the administration of topical or systemic corticosteroids, which are known to cause side effects, demanding a search for an alternative. Nigella sativa oil cream could be a safe, promising, cost-effective, adjunctive, or alternative modality. Clinical trial registration number: CTRI/2020/07/026745 (India). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]