F M M Schroeder, E S Pedraça, V M Palma, V C Carrard, M A T Martins, F L D M Maito, D Q M Lisbôa, Fernanda Visioli
{"title":"外用他克莫司奥拉帕斯与外用氯倍他索丙酸酯奥拉帕斯治疗症状性口腔扁平苔藓:一项试验性随机研究。","authors":"F M M Schroeder, E S Pedraça, V M Palma, V C Carrard, M A T Martins, F L D M Maito, D Q M Lisbôa, Fernanda Visioli","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol propionate in orabase for treating symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Pilot, randomized, and controlled study conducted on 21 patients with symptomatic OLP, selected according to the clinical and histopathological criteria of Cheng et al. 2016. Twelve patients received 0.1% tacrolimus, and nine received 0.05% clobetasol, both in orabase for 30 days with a two-month follow-up. The patients were examined for scores of signs (ODSS), symptoms (VAS), quality of life (OHIP-14), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Scale), and treatment satisfaction (Hedonic Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both treatments were effective in reducing ODSS, VAS, and Beck Anxiety Scale scores and performed well on the hedonic scale, yet without statistical difference between them. However, at the 1-month follow-up, patients in group Clobetasol showed a greater percentage reduction in ODSS score compared to baseline by 50% (p = 0.02) and significantly lower average values (p = 0.03) than those in group Tacrolimus. Longitudinal intragroup analysis revealed significant improvements over time in both groups for ODSS, and only in the tacrolimus group for OHIP-14 and Beck scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tested protocols were effective over a three-month follow-up. However, due to the lower cost of clobetasol propionate it can be considered the first-choice option. Tacrolimus in orabase formulation may be a promising alternative for refractory lesions that do not respond to topical steroids.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Managing symptomatic OLP is challenging. Comparisons between tacrolimus and clobetasol propionate in orabase formulations have not yet been thoroughly explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 10","pages":"559"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Topical tacrolimus orabase versus topical clobetasol propionate orabase in the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus: a pilot randomized study.\",\"authors\":\"F M M Schroeder, E S Pedraça, V M Palma, V C Carrard, M A T Martins, F L D M Maito, D Q M Lisbôa, Fernanda Visioli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol propionate in orabase for treating symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Pilot, randomized, and controlled study conducted on 21 patients with symptomatic OLP, selected according to the clinical and histopathological criteria of Cheng et al. 2016. Twelve patients received 0.1% tacrolimus, and nine received 0.05% clobetasol, both in orabase for 30 days with a two-month follow-up. The patients were examined for scores of signs (ODSS), symptoms (VAS), quality of life (OHIP-14), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Scale), and treatment satisfaction (Hedonic Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both treatments were effective in reducing ODSS, VAS, and Beck Anxiety Scale scores and performed well on the hedonic scale, yet without statistical difference between them. However, at the 1-month follow-up, patients in group Clobetasol showed a greater percentage reduction in ODSS score compared to baseline by 50% (p = 0.02) and significantly lower average values (p = 0.03) than those in group Tacrolimus. Longitudinal intragroup analysis revealed significant improvements over time in both groups for ODSS, and only in the tacrolimus group for OHIP-14 and Beck scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tested protocols were effective over a three-month follow-up. However, due to the lower cost of clobetasol propionate it can be considered the first-choice option. Tacrolimus in orabase formulation may be a promising alternative for refractory lesions that do not respond to topical steroids.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Managing symptomatic OLP is challenging. Comparisons between tacrolimus and clobetasol propionate in orabase formulations have not yet been thoroughly explored.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"volume\":\"28 10\",\"pages\":\"559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05943-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Topical tacrolimus orabase versus topical clobetasol propionate orabase in the treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus: a pilot randomized study.
Objectives: This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol propionate in orabase for treating symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP).
Materials and methods: Pilot, randomized, and controlled study conducted on 21 patients with symptomatic OLP, selected according to the clinical and histopathological criteria of Cheng et al. 2016. Twelve patients received 0.1% tacrolimus, and nine received 0.05% clobetasol, both in orabase for 30 days with a two-month follow-up. The patients were examined for scores of signs (ODSS), symptoms (VAS), quality of life (OHIP-14), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Scale), and treatment satisfaction (Hedonic Scale).
Results: Both treatments were effective in reducing ODSS, VAS, and Beck Anxiety Scale scores and performed well on the hedonic scale, yet without statistical difference between them. However, at the 1-month follow-up, patients in group Clobetasol showed a greater percentage reduction in ODSS score compared to baseline by 50% (p = 0.02) and significantly lower average values (p = 0.03) than those in group Tacrolimus. Longitudinal intragroup analysis revealed significant improvements over time in both groups for ODSS, and only in the tacrolimus group for OHIP-14 and Beck scores.
Conclusions: Both tested protocols were effective over a three-month follow-up. However, due to the lower cost of clobetasol propionate it can be considered the first-choice option. Tacrolimus in orabase formulation may be a promising alternative for refractory lesions that do not respond to topical steroids.
Clinical relevance: Managing symptomatic OLP is challenging. Comparisons between tacrolimus and clobetasol propionate in orabase formulations have not yet been thoroughly explored.
期刊介绍:
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.