|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 442-453
Consensus guidelines on management of oral potentially malignant disorders
Praveen N Birur1, Sanjana Patrick2, Saman Warnakulasuriya3, Keerthi Gurushanth4, Shubhasini A Raghavan4, Goura K Rath5, Pankaj Chaturvedi6, Vijay Chandru7, Babu Mathew8, Kumar Prabhash9, Shubha Gurudath4, Nirza Mukhia4, Sumsum P Sunny10, Ravi Mehrotra11, V Vivek12, Shankargouda Patil13, G Suresh Kumar14, Shruthi Fasalkar15, Rao Pratima16, Moni A Kuriakose17
1 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, KLE Society's Institute of Dental Sciences; Oral Cancer Screening Program, Biocon foundation, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Healthcare, Biocon Foundation, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Oral Medicine and Experimental Pathology, King's College London, England
4 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, KLE Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
5 Department of Radiation Oncology, B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, AIIMS, Delhi, India
6 Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, Maharashtra; Center for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, International Federation of Head and Neck Oncologic Societies, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
7 Strands Life Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
8 Community Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Trivandrum, Kerala, India
9 Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
10 Head and Neck Oncology, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
11 India Cancer Research Consortium, Rollins Institute of Public Health, Emroy University, Atlanta, GA, United States
12 PMS College of Dental Science and Research, Trivandrum, Kerala, India
13 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia
14 Indian Dental Association, Kerala, India
15 Biocon Foundation, India
16 Biocon Foundation, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
17 Cochin Cancer Center, India
|Date of Submission||31-Jan-2021|
|Date of Decision||01-Feb-2021|
|Date of Acceptance||09-May-2021|
|Date of Web Publication||07-Nov-2022|
Moni A Kuriakose
Cochin Cancer Center
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Oral cancer is usually preceded by oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and early detection can downstage the disease. The majority of OPMDs are asymptomatic in early stages and can be detected on routine oral examination. Though only a proportion of OPMDs may transform to oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), they may serve as a surrogate clinical lesion to identify individuals at risk of developing OSCC. Currently, there is a scarcity of scientific evidence on specific interventions and management of OPMDs and there is no consensus regarding their management. A consensus meeting with a panel of experts was convened to frame guidelines for clinical practices and recommendations for management strategies for OPMDs. A review of literature from medical databases was conducted to provide the best possible evidence and provide recommendations in management of OPMDs.
Keywords: Consensus, management, oral leukoplakia, oral lichen planus, oral potentially malignant disorders, oral submucous fibrosis
Key Message The consensus provides the guidelines for clinical practices in management of most common OPMDs such as oral leukoplakia, oral submucous fibrosis and oral lichen planus. The recommendation strategies aid in providing the best patient care in Indian scenarios.
|How to cite this article:|
Birur PN, Patrick S, Warnakulasuriya S, Gurushanth K, Raghavan SA, Rath GK, Chaturvedi P, Chandru V, Mathew B, Prabhash K, Gurudath S, Mukhia N, Sunny SP, Mehrotra R, Vivek V, Patil S, Kumar G S, Fasalkar S, Pratima R, Kuriakose MA. Consensus guidelines on management of oral potentially malignant disorders. Indian J Cancer 2022;59:442-53
|How to cite this URL:|
Birur PN, Patrick S, Warnakulasuriya S, Gurushanth K, Raghavan SA, Rath GK, Chaturvedi P, Chandru V, Mathew B, Prabhash K, Gurudath S, Mukhia N, Sunny SP, Mehrotra R, Vivek V, Patil S, Kumar G S, Fasalkar S, Pratima R, Kuriakose MA. Consensus guidelines on management of oral potentially malignant disorders. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 2];59:442-53. Available from: https://www.indianjcancer.com/text.asp?2022/59/3/442/360508
| » Introduction|| |
The term oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD) describes clinically detected oral mucosal conditions that carry an increased risk of progressing to cancer. Cancers of the lip, oral cavity, and oropharynx are among one of the most common cancers, with approximately 400,000 incident cases globally. Oral cancer has a particularly predilection in South Central Asia due to exposure to high-risk factors. In India, cancer of lip and oral cavity is rated second most among males and fifth in females. According to Globocan 2020, the incidence rate and the mortality rate was 10.3% and 5.4 per 100,000 population, respectively. The estimated age standardized 5-year prevalence rate was 19.59%.
Oral leukoplakia, erythroplakia, oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF), and oral lichen planus (OLP) among other potentially malignant disorders has risk for transition to oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Moreover, though the lesion per-se may not transform to OSCC, it may serve as a surrogate clinical lesion to identify individuals at risk of developing OSCC. The majority of these disorders may be asymptomatic in the early stages of their evolution which can be detected on routine oral examination It is therefore essential that the primary health professionals should be trained to identify OPMDs, advise further investigations and make necessary referrals to specialists for the treatment.
Currently, there is a scarcity of scientific evidence on specific interventions and management of OPMDs. So far, there exists no consensus regarding their management, outcome, and follow-up. Consensus meet was held during Annual symposium, Cochin on November 8, 2019, with peer group under supervision and guidance of Dr. Moni Abraham Kuriakose. A consensus meeting with a panel of experts was convened to frame guidelines for clinical practices and recommendations for management strategies of OPMDs. The panel of experts involved members of the Oral Cancer task force, Indian Dental Association members and faculties who are experts in the field of medicine, who have carried out extensive research related to OPMDs. The brochure for CanQuer Annual symposium 2019 was circulated among the experts in head and neck oncology. All members who expressed their interest in the symposium contributed to the document. The guidelines were formulated based on an extensive literature search to avail the current shreds of evidence. All the available treatment options have been considered and the guidelines were developed based on the available clinical resources and stratified as essential, optimal, and optional based on the available resources in India.
| » Methodology|| |
A systematic literature search was conducted for studies/articles in the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library. Current guidelines, meta-analyses, cross-sectional studies, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and key cited articles were included. The articles related to the management of OPMDs namely oral leukoplakia, OSMF, and oral lichen were critically evaluated by a group of reviewers. Search terms were selected from Medical Subject Headings and included “oral leukoplakia,” “oral submucous fibrosis,” “oral lichen planus,” their synonyms, “precancerous lesion,” “and precancerous condition,” “management,” and “Malignant transformation.” The aforementioned terms were combined using the Boolean operators “AND,” “OR.” There were no restrictions with regard to the time of publication. The unpublished data and full text that are not available were excluded. Flow diagram depicted in [Figure 1] shows the number of articles retrieved and selected.
|Figure 1: Flow diagram shows the number of articles retrieved and selected|
Click here to view
The potential evidence base for the recommendations for management of OPMD suitable for Indian scenarios was developed. The consensus group meeting was held to frame the guidelines for the current practices and recommendation for management strategies for OPMDs from the existing literature. The OPMD consensus group consists of experts from oncology, oral medicine, oral pathology, head and neck surgery, and community oncology disciplines. Recommendations for each disorder and overall recommendations were discussed thoroughly and arrived at a consensus by all the participating panel members. In the case of little or no evidence, the participants discussed and proposed clinically applicable management strategies.
The Delphi technique was used to frame the guidelines, based on the discussion by the group of experts to arrive at the consensus. The initial draft was circulated to the experts for review. Experts across the country reviewed the draft remotely; they added their comments and provided their valuable input. All the comments and information were compiled and recirculated for review. This process was continued until all the experts reached a general consensus and agreed upon all the recommendations. The guidelines have been formulated based on the latest available literature till the time the guidelines were prepared. The recommendation was then resource stratified as Essential, Optimal, and Optional for clinical adaptability. Essential would be considered as those treatments that at least should be provided and may not include the standard of care. Optimal is considered as the standard of care therapy and Optional include other standards of care options, which may be considered ideal; however, they may be unaffordable to the section of the society. The evidence levels are grouped in four levels (I–IV), as shown in [Table 1] (Prabhash K, et al. Indian clinical practice consensus guidelines for the management of squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck).
This manuscript is a summary of the discussion and report of the guidelines in management of oral leukoplakia, OSMF, and Oral lichen planus.
The term leukoplakia should be used to recognize “predominantly white plaques of questionable risk having excluded other known diseases or disorders that carry increased risk for OSCC.” Two main clinical types of leukoplakia are recognized, being homogeneous and nonhomogeneous leukoplakia [Figure 2]a, [Figure 2]b. The distinction is based on surface color and morphological (thickness and texture) characteristics. One form of leukoplakia may transform into other depending on habit cessation or continuation and natural history.
|Figure 2: (a) Homogeneous leukoplakia of left buccal mucosa, (b) Nonhomogeneous leukoplakia of left buccal mucosa|
Click here to view
The natural history of oral leukoplakia is broadly associated with exposure of risk factors and duration. Lifestyle risk factors include history of tobacco use (smokeless/smoking), the mixture of tobacco and areca nut use, history of alcohol use (considered as an independent or synergistic risk factor). The lesion may be asymptomatic or symptomatic with a history of burning sensation, soreness, tingling sensation, and occasional pain.,,,
The parameters to be observed during a clinical examination include the site, size, number, shape, surface and surrounding mucosa, extensions, texture, stretch/retract oral mucosa, scrapability, and cervical lymph node examination.,,,, The nonhomogeneous lesion more than 2 cm size, lesion colonized with candida, presence of epithelial dysplasia, subsites of tongue, and floor of the mouth have an increased risk for malignant transformation.,, Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia (PVL) has predominant white papillary projections, multifocal, more aggressive proliferation and has a high risk for malignant transformation rate (60–100%), and reports show high recurrence rate (86.7%) even after surgical removal., A deeper tissue biopsy is required to assess the histological changes in PVL.
The overall malignant transformation rate of oral leukoplakia varies from 0.13 to 34%. The clinical risk profiling for malignant transformation is depicted in [Table 2]., The low-risk OPMDs are arbitrarily defined as those with less than 5% lifetime risk and high risk as those with more than 5% lifetime risk for malignant transformation. High-grade dysplasia was associated with a 2.78-fold (95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.44-5.38; P = 0.002) increased risk of transition, as compared with low-grade dysplasia. The 5% cut off was used as a threshold at which in general active clinical intervention is considered. Studies have shown an approximate difference of 18–21% in malignant transformation between low- and high-grade dysplastic lesions.,,,
|Table 2: Clinical risk profiling for malignant transformation of Leukoplakia,|
Click here to view
The other suspicious features of OSCC include unhealed ulcer or erosion that lasts more than 3 weeks even after removal of the cause. The presence of palpable cervical lymph nodes increases the suspicion for OSCC. The diagnosis of leukoplakia is based on the exclusion of other white lesions. All white patches appearing in the oral cavity should not be labeled as oral leukoplakia. Leukoplakia is a nonscrapable white patch, white/red patch, often associated with tobacco, alcohol, or betel quid. Other white patches associated with any chemical or physical causative agents, history of trauma, white patches that can be Scraped off, and cases where the white color fades, on stretching the tissues, are excluded. There are several types of white lesions that are clinically distinguished from other lesions. These lesions need to be excluded in order to diagnose leukoplakia and are described in [Table 3].
|Table 3: Benign disorders that need exclusion to diagnose leukoplakia|
Click here to view
Indication for biopsy,,,
Biopsy of the lesion is generally indicated for high-risk lesions as shown in [Table 2]. It is also mandatory to rule out other mucosal conditions masquerading oral leukoplakia and also to assess their malignant transformation risk.
Biopsy is indicated in the individuals having the following features-
- Ulcers or erosions that persists over 3 weeks duration
- Lesion size >200 mm2
- Nonhomogeneous appearance
- Tongue lesions and lesions on floor of the mouth
- Individuals aged >40 years
- Female gender
- Individuals with no known risk habits
- Palpable cervical lymph nodes
- Family history of cancer
- Speckled appearance suggestive of candida infection
- Leukoplakia of over 2 years duration.
Type and site of biopsy ,
The purpose of a biopsy is to diagnose and characterize the lesions. Therefore, incision biopsy is generally recommended with the exceptions as noted below.
- Incisional biopsy may be performed from the most suspicious areas of the lesion such as redness, an area of surface thickening or a symptomatic area, and need not extend to involve the healthy tissue, for the pathologist to make a correct report.
- For multifocal or widespread leukoplakia, multiple biopsies may be required (field mapping)
- For non-homogeneous leukoplakia, incisional biopsy may not be representative; therefore, multiple biopsies may be carried out.
- For small leukoplakias less than 2 cm, excisional biopsy may be considered; however, the surgical team that undertakes the biopsy should have the competence to perform further surgery should it be required based on the biopsy report (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma).
Reporting of OPMD and criteria for grading of dysplasia
Characterization of the grade of dysplasia is the primary goal of histopathology [Figure 3]a, [Figure 3]b, [Figure 3]c, [Figure 3]d. To lower interobserver variability as well as for clinical applicability, Kujan et al. has developed a binary system to categorize epithelial dysplasia into low risk or high risk. Low risk includes lesions graded as nondysplastic or showing mild dysplasia and moderate epithelial dysplasia with three or less architectural criteria or four or less cytological criteria. On the other hand, high risk includes all lesions graded as severe dysplasia or carcinoma in situ and moderate epithelial dysplasia with four or more architectural criteria or five or more cytological criteria., To minimize subjectivity, WHO has recommended cellular and architectural criteria for dysplasia [Table 4]. The study by Speight et al. used a protocol to substantially increase the diagnostic agreement between the pathologists. The first review agreement between the two pathologists was 69.9%, with the kappa of 0.25–0.7. After the adjudication review of the third pathologist an additional 22.8% improvement was observed. In addition, the expression of S100A7, Loss of Heterozygosity (LOH), podoplanin, DNA content, Ploidy, and p16 methylation are the predictive molecular markers for malignant transformation.
|Figure 3: (a) The photomicrograph shows basal cell crowding and hyperchromatism at lower third of the epithelium suggestive of mild dysplasia. (b) Irregular epithelial stratification and loss of epithelial cell cohesion, extending up to middle third of the epithelium suggestive of moderate dysplasia. (c) Severe epithelial dysplasia involving alterations in the entire epithelial thickness. (d) The dysplastic epithelial cells extend from the basal layer to the surface of the mucosa suggestive of carcinoma in situ. (10X magnification; H&E stained)|
Click here to view
Management strategies for patients with leukoplakia fall into three categories: close observation, surgical removal and ablation, and medical therapies. The decision should be considered based on the risk assessment of malignant transformation and effectiveness of intervention. Recommendation for management of low-risk leukoplakia and high-risk leukoplakia is stratified as Essential, Optimal, and Optional and is provided in [Table 5] and [Table 6] respectively. The [Supplementary table S5](a) and [Supplementary table S6](a) describe the salient information and [Supplementary table S6](b), [Supplementary table S6](c) discusses the summary of clinical evidence in pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of leukoplakia, respectively. Surgical treatment for oral leukoplakia has not been assessed in a Randomized controlled Trial (RCT).
Histopathologically, erythroplakia most commonly shows at least some degree of dysplasia and often-even carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. Surgery, either by cold knife or by laser, is the recommended treatment modality.,, Oral cancer requires an immediate referral to a tertiary care center.
Guidelines for surveillance,,,,
Regular follow-up is required irrespective of any treatment modalities. A general recommendation is to re-examine the OPMD and full mouth irrespective of surgical excision every 3 months for the first year. If the lesion does not relapse or change in reaction pattern, the follow-up intervals may be extended to once every 6 months. New biopsies should be taken if new clinical features emerge. Following 5 years of no relapse, education of patients for self-mouth examination is recommended. At the first time of diagnosis, the low-risk subjects would be scheduled for follow-up after 5 years.
Oral submucous fibrosis
OSMF is described as a chronic insidious fibrotic disorder that progresses over time and involves the entire oral mucosa. Areca nut is known to be the major risk factor among people who probably have a genetic predisposition to the disease. It is predominantly seen in South and South-East Asia. Nigam et al. in 2014 noted a prevalence of 6.42%. Mello et al. in a literature review noted a prevalence of 4.96% in the year 2018.
Evaluation and Management of OSMF
The most objective assessors of outcome include interincisal mouth opening and severity of burning sensation as rated on a Visual Analogue Scale. Measures of improvement in quality of life need to be included.
Clinical criteria – The clinical presentation [Figure 4]a, [Figure 4]b depends on the stage of the disease. Flowchart summary of the clinical features is depicted in the [Figure 5].
|Figure 4: (a) Photograph shows the blanched lower labial mucosa; (b) limitation in mouth opening suggestive of oral submucous fibrosis|
Click here to view
|Figure 5: It shows flowchart summary of the clinical features for oral submucous fibrosis|
Click here to view
Grading of OSMF – Various grading classification systems have been documented in medical literature by various authors in the past. The most suggested grading system that can be routinely used in the clinical practice and help in early diagnosis and treatment:
Grade 1 – Mild: Any features of the disease triad for OSMF (burning, depapillation, blanching or leathery mucosa) with vesicles and increased salivation may be reported – and interincisal opening >35 mm
Grade 2 – Moderate: Above features of OSMF + interincisal limitation of opening 20–35 mm
Grade 3 – Severe: Above features of OSMF, decreased salivation, and sticky mucous saliva + interincisal opening <20 mm
Grade 4A – OSMF + other potentially malignant disorder on clinical examination
Grade 4B – OSMF with any grade of oral epithelial dysplasia on biopsy
Grade 5 – OSMF + oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Indication for biopsy
Grades 1, 2, and 3 can be diagnosed on clinical basis alone. Biopsy is indicated for Grade 4 - OSMF with any other OPMD, presence of growth superimposed on OSMF, and presence of ulcer lasting more than 3 weeks, after removal of definitive etiology (e.g., Sharp tooth). Biopsy can be combined with immunohistochemistry to evaluate expression of CD34 and CD105 to detect neoangiogenesis.
Synoptic reporting of OSMF, criteria for grades of dysplasia in OSMF
The current reporting of dysplasia follows the WHO criteria of mild epithelial dysplasia, moderate epithelial dysplasia, and severe epithelial dysplasia. However, in view of the epithelial atrophy in OSMF, the difficulty in assessing thirds of epithelium to provide the above-mentioned grades of dysplasia has been highlighted. Thus, adapting the binary classification would lend greater objectivity to grading of dysplasia in OSMF. The binary system categorizes epithelial dysplasia into low risk or high risk. Epithelial dysplasia with three or less architectural criteria or four or less cytological criteria is considered as low risk. High risk involves epithelial dysplasia with four or more architectural criteria or five or more cytological criteria. The synoptic reporting of OSMF is similar to leukoplakia.
The malignant transformation rate for OSMF has been reported to be between 7% and 30%. However, oral squamous cell carcinomas associated with a OSMF are associated with good clinicopathological profile and have better prognosis and oncological outcomes. Currently used treatment modalities for management of OSMF include: Nutrients and antioxidants (Vitamin A, B complex), minerals (Fe, Zn, Mg), lycopene, enzymes (collagenase, hyaluronidase, chymotrypsin), immune modulation (betamethasone, triamcinolone acetonide, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, IFN- γ, levamisole), promotion of blood flow (pentoxifylline, nylindrin hydrochloride, buflomedil hydrochloride, isoxsuprine), anti-inflammatory (curcumin, aloe vera). The quality of these studies has been described as being “very low” with significant limitations. Surgical interventions are generally reserved for more advanced cases of OSMF. Surgical excision of bands includes cold knife excision, CO2, KTP-532, diode laser, and subsequent reconstruction with tissue flaps. Surgical techniques achieve good mouth opening, but average shrinkage of about 5 mm has been noticed in patients in the late postoperative period.
The lack of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of any specific interventions for the management of OSMF is illustrated by the paucity of trials. None of these treatments have reached general acceptance and the long-term results are dubious., Management of limitation of mouth opening is given in [Table 7] and [Table 8], resource stratified as Essential, Optimal, and Optional. [Supplementary table S7](a) and [Supplementary table S8](a) provide the salient information of Essential, Optimal, and Optional recommended management of OSMF. The summary of current evidence in the management of OSMF is in [Supplementary table S8](b).
|Table 7: Recommended treatment modality for management of OSMF Grade 1, 2 (mouth opening >20 mm)|
Click here to view
|Table 8: Recommended treatment modality for Grade 3 OSMF (mouth opening <20 mm)|
Click here to view
Management of dysplasia
Low-grade dysplasia involves continued follow-up once in 3 months for the first year, and once in 6 months in case of no increase in size/change in appearance. High-grade dysplasia requires surgical excision or when the clinical signs of malignant transformation are noticed in a white/red lesion. It requires continued follow-up once in 3 months for the first year, and once in 6 months in case of no relapse. Counseling for tobacco, alcohol, and areca nut cessation and dietary modulation of using green leafy vegetables and fruits are the same as in Leukoplakia.
Regular follow-up is required irrespective of any treatment modalities and the final recommendation from the meeting is as per [Table 7] and [Table 8].
Oral lichen planus
OLP is an inflammatory disorder of the skin and mucous membranes with no known cause. Malignant transformation of OLP per year ranges between 0.04 and 1.74%. The etiology of OLP is not known. The current evidence suggests the role of cell-mediated immune response with T-lymphocyte cytotoxicity directed against antigens expressed by the basal cell layer. Other factors include stress, Hepatitis C virus infection, particularly in endemic regions. Oral lichenoid reactions (OLR) are considered the variant of OLP caused by dental restorative materials and several drugs. The restorative materials such as amalgam, composite, gold, acrylic; and drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, sulfonylureas, beta-blockers, oral hypoglycaemic agents, dapsone, penicillamine have been reported to cause (OLR). Oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) are associated with tobacco chewers; the causative role of tobacco in OLP is unknown. Krutchkoff and Eisenberg reported lesions showing lichenoid features with epithelial dysplasia is a distinct histopathological entity termed as Lichenoid Dysplasia (LD) that mimics clinically and histologically OLP. They postulated that OLP cases evolve to malignancy are linked with LD. The presence of dysplasia in OLP and OLL may indicate malignant potential.,
OLP may contain both red and white elements and provide, together with the different textures, the basis for the clinical classification of this disorder. The white and red components of the lesion can be a part of various clinical types. The reticular form of OLP is characterized by fine white lines or striae [Figure 6]a. The striae may form a network but can also show annular (circular) patterns. The striae often display a peripheral erythematous zone, which reflects a subepithelial inflammation [Figure 6]b. The papular type is clinically characterized by small white dots, which in most occasions intermingle with the reticular form. Plaque-type OLP shows a homogeneous well-demarcated white plaque that occurs in conjunction with striae. The bullous form is very unusual but may appear as bullous eruptions surrounded by a reticular network. Erythematous (atrophic) OLP is characterized by a homogeneous red area. This form of lesion may occur without any white papules or striae. On gingivae erythematous, OLP presents as desquamative gingivitis. In ulcerative type, fibrin-coated ulcers are surrounded by an erythematous zone with white striae in the periphery.
|Figure 6: (a) Photograph showing reticular pattern on right buccal mucosa; (b) showing erosive areas with striations on palatal gingiva|
Click here to view
Clinical diagnosis includes oral biopsy with histopathological evaluation. It is important that a biopsy be performed to confirm a diagnosis. The indication and determination of biopsy site is governed by the extensiveness OLP with erosive areas, recalcitrant lesions, and symptomatic areas. Often, the second distinct specimen obtained are subjected to direct immunofluorescent testing.
No therapy for OLP is completely curative; the goal of treatment for symptomatic patients is palliation. Patients with OLP are carriers of a disease with systemic implications and may need the care of a multidisciplinary team. The correct diagnosis of any pathology is critical to make treatment effective and minimize iatrogenic harm. The primary goal of treatment of symptomatic OLP is the reduction, and preferably elimination of pain associated with the lesions and to reduce the frequency of symptomatic episodes. Topical corticosteroids including betamethasone, clobetasol, dexamethasone, and triamcinolone; calcineurin inhibitors such as pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, or cyclosporin; retinoids such as tretinoin; photochemotherapy and newer traditional medicine have been reported in the treatment of symptomatic OLP. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific treatment as being superior. Recommendation for management of nondysplastic OLP have been considered and resource stratified as Essential, Optimal, and Optional in [Table 9]. Salient information of Essential, Optimal, and Optional recommended management of oral lichen planus are given in [Supplementary table S9](a). [Supplementary table S9](b) and [Supplementary table S9](c) describe the summary of clinical evidences in pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of OLP, respectively.
OLP with dysplasia is treated similarly as dysplastic lesions mentioned earlier (similar to leukoplakia with dysplasia). Topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% or topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% in orabase (2–3 times/day/3 weeks followed by tapering during the following 9 weeks until a maintenance dose of 2 to 3 times/week) is considered as an essential treatment to reduce pain and inflammation.
Erosive and ulcerative (Symptomatic) OLP should undergo regular follow-up of up to 3 times a year. OLP with dysplasia should be examined more frequently, every 2–3 months, whereas the reticular type (asymptomatic) may be assessed annually. In case of any evidence of change in clinical appearance, increase in burning sensation/pain, the follow-up period should be shortened and biopsy should be provided.
| » Conclusion|| |
The consensus guidelines can be a road map for clinical practitioners for managing OPMDs, and these guidelines can aid in providing the best patient care. Since no uniform practices exist in management, the expert panel drafted guidelines for their management and stratified them as Essential, Optimal, and Optional in the management of oral leukoplakia, OSMF, and oral lichen planus. This paper presents an updated report based on the current evidences and recommendation strategies in the management of OPMDs following discussion by an expert group., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| » References|| |
Speight PM, Abram TJ, Floriano PN, Ames R, Vick J, Thornhill MH, et al
. Inter-observer agreement in dysplasia grading: Towards an enhanced gold standard for clinical pathology trials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;120:474-2.
India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Collaborators. The burden of cancers and their variations across the states of India: The Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2016. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:289–3.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al
. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49.
Sarode SC, Sarode GS, Tupkari JV. Oral Potentially malignant disorders: A proposal for terminology and definition with review of literature. J Oal Maxillofac Pathol 2014;18:S77-80.
Warnakulasuriya S. Clinical features and presentation of oral potentially malignant disorders. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018;125:582-90.
Prabhash K, Babu G, Chaturvedi P, Kuriakose M, Birur P, Anand AK, et al
. Indian clinical practice consensus guidelines for the management of squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Indian J Cancer 2020:57:S22-5.
Warnakulasuriya S, Johnson NW, van der Waal I. Nomenclature and classification of potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa. J Oral Pathol Med 2007;36:575–80.
Diz P, Gorsky M, Johnson NW, Kragelund C, Manfredi M, Odell E, et al
. Oral leukoplakia and erythroplakia: A protocol for diagnosis and management. EAOM- diagnostic and treatment protocols. 2011:1-8.
Greenberg MS, Glick M, Ship JA. Burket's Oral Medicine. 10th
ed. BC Decker Inc; 2008. p. 85-125.
Greenberg MS, Glick M, Ship JA. Burket's Oral Medicine. 11th
ed. BC Decker Inc; 2008. p. 77-106.
Greenberg MS, Glick M, Ship JA. Burket's Oral Medicine. 12th
ed. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, Ltd.; 2015. p. 91-122.
Abidullah M, Kiran G, Gaddikeri K, Raghoji S, Ravishankar TS. Leuloplakia -Review of a potentially malignant disorder. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ZE01-4.
Warnakulasuriya S, Ariyawardana A. Malignant transformation of oral leukoplakia: A systematic review of observational studies. J Oral Pathol Med 2016;45:155–66.
Arduino PG, Surace A, Carbone M, Elia A, Massolini G, Gandolfo S, et al
. Outcome of oral dysplasia: A retrospective hospital-based study of 207 patients with a long follow-up. J Oral Pathol Med 2009;38:540–4.
Liu W, Bao ZX, Shi LJ, Tang GY, Zhou ZT. Malignant transformation of oral epithelial dysplasia: Clinicopathological risk factors and outcome analysis in a retrospective cohort of 138 cases. Histopathology 2011;59:733-40.
Liu W, Shi LJ, Wu L, Feng J, Yang X, Li J, et al
. Oral cancer development in patients with leukoplakia--clinicopathological factors affecting outcome. PLoS One 2012;7:e34773.
Ho MW, Risk JM, Woolgar JA, Field EA, Field JK, Steele JC, et al
. The clinical determinants of malignant transformation in oral epithelial dysplasia. Oral Oncol 2012;48:969-76.
Kujan O, Oliver RJ, Khattab A, Roberts SA, Thakker N, Sloan P, et al
. Evaluation of a new binary system of grading oral epithelial dysplasia for prediction of malignant transformation. Oral Oncol 2006;42:987-93.
Barnes L, Eveson JW, Reichart P, Sidransky S. World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics. Head and Neck Tumours. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer Press; 2005.
El-Naggar AK, Chan JK, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors. WHO/IARC Classification of Tumours. 4th
ed, vol. 9. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Press; 2017.
Hwang JT, Gu YR, Shen M, Ralhan R, Walfish PG, Pritzker KP, et al
. Individualized five- year risk assessment for oral premalignant lesions progression to cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Rad 2017;123:374-81.
Gillenwater A, Papadimitrakopoulou V, Richards-Kortum R. Oral premalignancy: New methods of detection and treatment. Curr Oncol Rep 2006;8:146–54.
Arruda JAA, Álvares PR, Sobral APV, Mesquita RA. A review of the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of oral leukoplakia. J Dent and Oral Disord 2016;2:1009.
Kumar A, Cascarini L, Mc Caul JA, Kerawala CJ, Coombes D, Godden D. How should we manage oral leukoplakia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:377–83.
Ribeiro AS, Salles PR, Da Silva TA, Mesquita RA. A review of the nonsurgical treatment of oral leukoplakia. Int J Dent 2010;2010:186018.
Warnakulasuriya S, Reibel J, Bouquot J, Dabelsteen E. Oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems: Predictive value, utility, weaknesses and scope for improvement. J Oral Pathol Med 2008;37:127–33.
Nigam NK, Aravinda K, Dhillon M, Gupta S, Reddy S, Raju MS. Prevalence of oral submucous fibrosis among habitual gutkha and areca nut chewers in Moradabad district. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2014;4:8-13.
Mello FW, Miguel AFP, Dutra KL, Porporatti AL, Warnakulasuriya S, Guerra ENS, et al
. Prevalence of oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Pathol Med 2018;47:633-40.
Kerr AR, Warnakulasuriya S, Mighell AJ, Dietrich T, Nasser M, Rimal J, et al
. A systematic review of medical interventions for oral submucous fibrosis and future research opportunities. Oral Dis 2011;17:42-57.
Pammar C, Nayak RS, Kotrashetti VS, Hosmani J. Comparison of microvessel density using CD34 and CD105 in oral submucous fibrosis and its correlation with clinicopathologic features: An immunohistochemical study. J Cancer Res Ther 2018;14:983-8.
Shirsat PM, Desai RS, Bansal S, Prasad P. Oral epithelial dysplasia in oral submucous fibrosis: A challenge. Oral Oncol 2016;54:e19.
Ranganathan K, Kavitha L. Oral epithelial dysplasia: Classifications and clinical relevance in risk assessment of oral potentially malignant disorders. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2019;23:19–27.
] [Full text]
Bari S, Metgud R, Vyas Z, Tak A. An update on studies on etiological factors, disease progression, and malignant transformation in oral submucous fibrosis. J Cancer Res Ther 2017;13:399-405.
Chaturvedi P, Malik A, Nair D, Nair S, Mishra A, Garg A, et al
. Oral squamous cell carcinoma associated with oral submucous fibrosis have better oncologic outcome than those without. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 2017;124:225-30.
Lavanya N, Jayanthi P, Rao UK, Ranganathan K. Oral lichen planus: An update on pathogenesis and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2011;15:127–32. [Full text]
Patil S, Rao RS, Sanketh DS, Warnakulasuriya S. Lichenoid dysplasia revisited - evidence from a review of Indian archives. J Oral Pathol Med 2015;44:507-14.
Rossi D, Ciarrocca K, Oral lichen planus and lichenoid mucositis. Dent Clin N Am 2014;58:299–13.
Cassol-Spanemberg J, Rodríguez-de Rivera-Campillo ME, Otero-Rey EM, Estrugo-Devesa A, Jané-Salas E, López-López J. Oral lichen planus and its relationship with systemic diseases. A review of evidence. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e938-44.
Thongprasom K, Carrozzo M, Furness S, Lodi G. Interventions for treating oral lichen planus (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;7:CD001168.
Mignogna MD, Lo Muzio L, Lo Russo L, Fedele S, Ruoppo E, Bucci E. Clinical guidelines in early detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma arising in oral lichen planus: A 5-year experience. Oral Oncol 2001;37:262-7.
Lodi G, Franchini R, Warnakulasuriya S, Varoni EM, Sardella A, Kerr AR, et al
. Interventions for treating oral leukoplakia to prevent oral cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;7:CD001829.
Mehenna HM, Rattay T, Smith J, Mc Conkey CC. Treatment and follow up of oral dysplasia – A systematic review and metaanalysis. Head Neck 2009;31:1600-9.
Martorell-Calatayud A, Botella-Estrada R, Bagán-Sebastián JV, Sanmartín-Jiménez O, Guillén-Barona C. Oral leukoplakia: Clinical, histopathologic, and molecular features and therapeutic approach. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2009;100:669-84.
Lingen MW, Tampi MP, Urquhart O, Abt E, Agrawal N, Chaturvedi AK, et al
. Adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity. J Am Dent Assoc 2017;148:797-813.
Natekar M, Raghuveer H-P, Rayapati D-K, Shobha E-S, Prashanth N-T, Rangan V, et al
. A comparative evaluation: Oral leukoplakia surgical management using diode laser, CO2 laser, and cryosurgery. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9:e779-84.
van der Hem PS, Nauta JM, van der Wal JE, Roodenburg JL. The results of CO2 laser surgery in patients with oral leukoplakia: A 25 year follow up. Oral Oncol 2005;41:31-7.
Vohra F, Al-Kheraif AA, Qadri T, Hassan MI, Ahmed A, Warnakulasuriya S, et al
. Efficacy of photodynamic therapy in the management of oral premalignant lesions. A systematic review. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2015;12:150-9.
Epstein JB, Wong FLW, Millner A, Le ND. Topical bleomycin treatment of oral leukoplakia: A randomized double blind clinical trial. Head Neck 1994;16:539-44.
Sankaranarayanan R, Mathew B, Varghese C, Sudhakaran PR, Menon V, Jayadeep A, et al
. Chemoprevention of oral leukoplakia with vitamin A and beta carotene: An assessment. Oncology 1997;33:231-6.
Piattelli A, Fioroni M, Santinelli A, Rubini C. bcl-2 expression and apoptotic bodies in 13-cis-retinoic acid (isotretinoin)-topically treated oral leukoplakia: A pilot study. Oral Oncol 1999;35:314-20.
Gaeta GM, Gombos F, Femiano F, Battista C, Minghetti P, Montanari L, et al
. Acitretin and treatment of the oral leucoplakias. A model to have an active molecules release. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2000;14:473-8.
Mulshine JL, Atkinson JC, Greer RO, Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Van Waes C, Rudy S, et al
. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the cyclooxygenase inhibitor ketorolac as an oral rinse in oropharyngeal leukoplakia. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:1565-73.
Singh M, Krishanappa R, Bagewadi A, Keluskar V. Efficacy of oral lycopene in the treatment of oral leukoplakia. Oral Oncol. 2004;40:591-6.
Kuriakose MA, Ramdas K, Dey B, Iyer S, Rajan G, Elango KK, et al
. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase IIB trial of curcumin in oral leukoplakia. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2016;9:683-91.
Li N, Sun Z, Han C, Chen J. The chemopreventive effects of tea on human oral precancerous mucosa lesions. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1999;220:218-24.
Mallery SR, Zwick JC, Pei P, Tong M, Larsen PE, Shumway BS, et al
. Topical application of a bioadhesive black raspberry gel modulates gene expression and reduces cyclooxygenase 2 protein in human premalignant oral lesions. Cancer Res 2008;68:4945-57.
Warnakulasuriya S, Kerr AR. Oral submucous fibrosis. A review of the current management and possible directions for novel therapies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016;122:232-41.
Vijaykumar M, Priya D. Physiotherapy for improving mouth opening and tongue protrusion in patients with Oral Submucous Fibrosis (OSMF) – Case Series. Intern J Pharmaceutical Sci Health Care 2013;2:50-8.
Asha V, Baruah N. Physiotherapy in treatment of oral submucous fibrosis related restricted mouth opening. Internat Healthcare Res J 2017;1:252-7.
Kumar A, Bagewadi A, Keluskar V, Singh M. Efficacy of lycopene in the management of oral submucous fibrosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:207-13.
Karemore TV, Motwani M. Evaluation of the effect of newer antioxidant lycopene in the treatment of oral submucous fibrosis. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:524-8.
] [Full text]
Yadav M, Aravinda K, Saxena VS, Srinivas K, Ratnakar P, Gupta J, et al
. Comparison of curcumin with intralesional steroid injections in Oral Submucous Fibrosis – A randomized, open-label interventional study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Resear 2014;4:169-73.
Das DA, Balan A, Sreelatha KT. Comparative study of the efficacy of curcumin and turmeric oil as chemopreventive agents in oral submucous fibrosis: A clinical and histopatholgical evaluation. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2010;22:88-92. [Full text]
Sudarshan R, Annigeri RG, Sree Vijayabala G. Aloe vera in the treatment for oral submucous fibrosis - A preliminary study. J Oral Pathol Med 2012;41:755-61.
Alam S, Ali I, Giri KY, Gokkulakrishnan S, Natu SS, Faisal M, et al
. Efficacy of aloe vera gel as an adjuvant treatment of oral submucous fibrosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2013;116:717-24.
Veedu RA, Balan A, Sankar SP. A randomized double - blind, multiple arm trial comparing the efficacy of submucosal injections of hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and combination of dexamethasone and hyaluronidase in the management of OSF. Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol 2015;120:588-93.
Rai S, Rattan V, Gupta A, Kumar P. Conservative management of OSMF in early and intermediate stages. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2018;8:86-8.
Rajendran R, Rani V, Shaikh S. Pentoxifylline therapy: A new adjunct in the treatment of oral submucous fibrosis. Indian J Dent Res 2006;17:190-8.
] [Full text]
Mehrotra R, Singh HP, Gupta SC, Singh M, Jain S. Pentoxifylline therapy in the management of oral submucous fibrosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:971-4.
Kaplan FT. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. Drugs Today (Barc) 2011;47:653-67.
Moinzadeh P, Hunzelmann N, Krieg T. Pharmacology and rationale for imatinib in the treatment of scleroderma. J Exp Pharmacol 2013;5:15-22.
Ashok L, Sujatha GP. Targeted therapy for oral submucous fibrosis - Future strategies. J Med Radiol Pathol Surg 2015;1:1-2.
Kameshwaran M, Raghavan D, Anand Kumar RS, Murali S. Surgical management of trismus due to oral submucous fibrosis—lysis of fibrotic bands with the KTP-532 laser. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;58:229–31.
Shah A, Vakade M. Surgical management of oral submucous fibrosis using ''Opus 5'' diode laser. J Oral Laser Appl 2005;5:37–43.
Talsania JR, Shah UB, Shah AI, Singh NK. Use of diode laser in oral submucous fibrosis with trismus. Prospective study. Ind J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;61:22–5.
Kamath VV. Surgical interventions in oral submucous fibrosis: A systematic analysis of the literature. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14:521-31.
Borle RM, Borle SR. Management of oral submucous fibrosis: A conservative approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:788-91.
Lai DR, Chen HR, Lin LM, Huang YL, Tsai CC. Clinical evaluation of different treatment methods for oral submucous fibrosis. A 10 year experience with 150 cases. J Oral Pathol Med 1995;24:402-6.
Kakar PK, Puri RK, Venkatachalam VP. Oral submucous fibrosis--treatment with hyalase. J Laryngol Otol 1985;99:57-9.
Kalkur C, Sattur AP, Guttal KS. Role of depression, anxiety and stress in patients with oral lichen planus: A pilot study. Indian J Dermatol 2015;60:445–9.
] [Full text]
Rodstrom PO, Hakeberg M, Jontell M, Nordin P. Erosive oral lichen planus treated with clobetasol propionate and triamcinolone acetonide in Orabase: A double-blind clinical trial. J Dermatolog Treat 1994;5:7–10.
Hegarty MA, Hodgson TA, Lewsey JD, Porter SR. Fluticasone propionate spray and betamethasone sodium phosphate mouthrinse: A randomized crossover study for the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;47:271-9.
Liu C, Xie B, Yang Y, Lin D, Wang C, Lin M, et al
. Efficacy of intralesional betamethasone for erosive oral lichen planus and evaluation of recurrence: A randomized, controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:584-90.
Arduino PG, Carbone M, Della Ferrera F, Elia A, Conrotto D, Gambino A, et al
. Pimecrolimus vs. tacrolimus for the topical treatment of unresponsive oral erosive lichen planus: An 8-week randomized double-blind controlled study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014;28:475-82.
Buajeeb W, Kraivaphan P, Pobrurksa C. Efficacy of topical retinoic acid compared with topical fluocinolone acetonide in the treatment of oral lichen planus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83:21-5.
Chainani-Wu N, Silverman S Jr, Reingold A, Bostrom A, Mc Culloch C, Lozada-Nur F, et al
. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of curcuminoids in oral lichen planus. Phytomedicine 2007;14:437-46.
Agha-Hosseini F, Moslemi E, Mirzaii-Dizgah I. Comparative evaluation of low-level laser and CO2 laser in treatment of patients with oral lichen planus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:1265–9.
Al-Maweri SA, Ashraf S, Kalakonda B, Halboub E, Petro W, AlAizari NA. Efficacy of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus: A systematic review. J Oral Pathol Med 2018;47:326-32.
Lundquist G, Forsgren, Gajecki M, Emtestam L. Photochemotherapy of oral lichen planus. A controlled study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79:554-8.
Campisi G, Giandalia G, De Caro V, Di Liberto C, Aricò P, Giannola LI. A new delivery system of clobetasol-17-propionate (lipid-loaded microspheres 0.025%) compared with a conventional formulation (lipophilic ointment in a hydrophilic phase 0.025%) in topical treatment of atrophic/erosive oral lichen planus. A Phase IV, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel group clinical trial. Br J Dermatol 2004;150:984-90.
Gorouhi F, Solhpour A, Beitollahi JM, Afshar S, Davari P, Hashemi P, et al
. Randomized trial of pimecrolimus cream versus triamcinolone acetonide paste in the treatment of oral lichen planus. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;57:806-13.
Ghabanchi J, Bahri Najafi R, Haghnegahdar S. Treatment of oral inflammatory diseases with a new mucoadhesive prednisolone table versus triamcinolone acetonide paste. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2009;11:155-9.
Chauhan P, De D, Handa S, Narang T, Saikia UN. A prospective observational study to compare efficacy of topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% oral paste, oral methotrexate, and a combination of topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% and oral methotrexate in moderate to severe oral lichen planus. Dermatol Ther 2018;31. doi: 10.1111/dth. 12563.
Arduino PG, Campolongo MG, Sciannameo V, Conrotto D, Gambino A, Cabras M, et al
. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of clobetasol propionate 0.05% in the treatment of oral lichen planus. Oral Dis 2018;24:772-7.
Chamani G, Rad M, Zarei R, Lotfi S, Sadeghi M, Ahmadi Z. Efficacy of tacrolimus and clobetasol in the treatment of oral lichen planus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Dermatol 2015;54:996-1004.
Siponen M, Huuskonen L, Kallio-Pulkkinen S, Nieminen P, Salo T. Topical tacrolimus, triamcinolone acetonide, and placebo in oral lichen planus: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Oral Dis 2017;23:660-8.
Sun SL, Liu JJ, Zhong B, Wang JK, Jin X, Xu H, et al
. Topical calcineurin inhibitors in the treatment of oral lichen planus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 2019;181:1166-76.
Ezzatt OM, Helmy IM. Topical pimecrolimus versus betamethasone for oral lichen planus: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:947-56.
Carbone M, Goss E, Carrozzo M, Castellano S, Conrotto D, Broccoletti R, et al
. Systemic and topical corticosteroid treatment of oral lichen planus: A comparative study with long-term follow-up. J Oral Pathol Med 2003;32:323-9.
Malhotra AK, Khaitan BK, Sethuraman G, Sharma VK. Betamethasone oral mini-pulse therapy compared with topical triamcinolone acetonide (0.1%) paste in oral lichen planus: A randomized comparative study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;58:596-602.
Maloth K, Velpula N, Kodangal S, Sangmesh M, Vellamchetla K, Ugrappa S, et al
. Photodynamic therapy – A non-invasive treatment modality for precancerous lesions. J Lasers Med Sci 2016;7:30–6.
Saleh WE, Khashaba O, El nagdy S, Moustafa MD. Photodynamic therapy of oral erosive lichen planus in diabetic and hypertensive patients. J Dent 2014;1:119–23.
Jajarm HH, Falaki F, Sanatkhani M, Ahmadzadeh M, Ahrari F, Shafaee H. A comparative study of toluidine blue-mediated photodynamic therapy versus topical corticosteroids in the treatment of erosive-atrophic oral lichen planus: A randomized clinical controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:1475–80.
Bakhtiari S, Azari-Marhabi S, Mojahedi SM, Namdari M, Rankohi ZE, Jafari S. Comparing clinical effects of photodynamic therapy as a novel method with topical corticosteroid for treatment of Oral Lichen Planus. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2017; 20:159–64.
Mostafa D, Moussa E, Alnouaem M. Evaluation of photodynamic therapy in treatment of oral erosive lichen planus in comparison with topically applied corticosteroids. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2017;19:56–66.
Jajarm H, Falaki F, Mahdavi O. A comparative pilot study of low intensity laser versus topical corticosteroids in the treatment of erosive-atrophic oral lichen planus. Photomed Laser Surg 2011;29:421-5.
Dillenburg CS, Martins MA, Munerato MA, Marques MM, Carrard VC, Sant'Ana Filho M, et al
. Efficacy of laser phototherapy in comparison to topical clobetasol for the treatment of oral lichen planus: A randomised controlled trial. J Biomedical Optics 2014;19:068002. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.19.6.068002.
EI Shenawy HM, Eldin AM. A Comparative evaluation of low-level laser and topical steroid therapies for the treatment of erosive- atrophic lichen planus. Open access Maced J Med Sci 2015;3:462-6.
Kazancioglu HO, Erisen M. Comparison of low-level laser therapy versus ozone therapy in the treatment of oral lichen planus. Ann Dermatol 2015;27:485–1.
Othman NA, Shaker OG, Elshenawy HM, Abd-Elmoniem W, Eldin AM, Fakhr MY. The effect of diode laser and topical steroid on serum level of TNF-alpha in oral lichenplanus patients. J Clin Exp Dent 2016;8:e566–70.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9]