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

Integrative Approaches for the Diagnosis and Management of Erosive Oral Lichen Planus

Erosive oral lichen planus (EOLP) represents a significant challenge in dental and medical management due to its chronic inflammatory nature, painful symptoms, and impact on quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the current diagnostic approach with novel non-invasive techniques, such as dermoscopy, and also the landscape of treatment options for EOLP, focusing on its efficacy, safety, and the challenges that it present in clinical practice. Through a comprehensive literature review, we explored the use of topical corticosteroids, systemic immunosuppressants, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in treating EOLP, alongside examining patient compliance, psychological impacts, and the risk of adverse effects and recurrence. Our findings reveal that while topical corticosteroids are the cornerstone of EOLP treatment, offering symptomatic relief, their long-term use is limited by side effects and tolerance development. Systemic therapies and biologics provide alternatives for refractory cases but necessitate careful adverse effect monitoring. JAK inhibitors show promise as an innovative treatment avenue but require more evidence on long-term safety and efficacy. This study highlights the necessity of personalized treatment approaches due to the variable disease course and response to treatment, underscoring the importance of a multidisciplinary strategy in managing EOLP. The complexity of EOLP treatment, compounded by its psychological and quality of life impacts, demands ongoing research into targeted therapies, the establishment of standardized treatment protocols, and the development of effective outcome measures to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

What can we learn from treatments of oral lichen planus?

Oral lichen planus (OLP), a T-lymphocyte-mediated disease of the oral mucosa, has a complex pathogenesis that involves a number of factors. The disease is characterized by recurrent episodes and requires continuous follow up, and there is no curative treatment available. Erosive lichen planus, among others, has a risk of malignant transformation and requires standardized treatment to control its progression. Different clinical subtypes of oral lichen planus require appropriate treatment. Pharmacological treatments are the most widely available and have the greatest variety of options and a number of novel pharmacological treatments are presented as highlights, including JAK enzyme inhibitors. The second is photodynamic therapy, which is the leading physiological treatment. In addition, periodontal treatment and psychological treatment should not be neglected. In this review, we briefly discuss the most recent developments in therapies for oral lichen planus after summarizing the most widely used clinical treatments, aiming to provide different proposals for future clinical treatment.

Oral Lichen Planus: An Update on Diagnosis and Management

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease whose pathogenesis involves a T-cell mediated, epithelium-directed inflammation in response to unknown antigen(s). The disease evolves by intermittent flares and displays polymorphous clinical features (reticular, erosive, atrophic, plaque, papular, bullous, etc.). When present, symptoms vary depending on the clinical form and range from discomfort to severe pain. Topical superpotent corticosteroids constitute the first-line treatment of symptomatic flares, whereas a wide range of second/third-line treatments are available among topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids, systemic retinoids, topical/systemic immunomodulators, etc. Follow-up of patients is necessary to detect transformation into squamous cell carcinoma, occurring in approximately 1% of patients.

Effect of platelet concentrates for pain and symptom management in oral lichen planus: an evidence-based systematic review

BACKGROUND

Platelet Concentrate (PC) injection therapy has shown potential as a local therapy for oral lichen planus (OLP). However, its safety and efficacy have not yet been fully established. Our research compared the efficacy of PC with topical steroid treatment in alleviating pain and symptoms related to OLP. We aims to present evidence-based alternatives that dentists can use to improve patient outcomes while reducing potential side effects.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases up to April 2023, including Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, OVID Medline, and WanFang, to evaluate PCs' efficacy compared to topical corticosteroid therapy for OLP. The literature quality was assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. A fixed-effects model was used to determine the Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) and Mean Difference (MD) at a 95% confidence interval (CI) for pain severity and other relevant clinical indicators.

RESULTS

The comparison between topical corticosteroid therapy and PCs showed no significant difference for pain relief (WMD = -0.07, CI = 95% -0.34 to 0.19), symptom improvement (MD = -0.21, CI = 95% -0.55 to 0.13), or the severity of included lesions measured by REU scores (MD = -0.25, CI = 95% -0.32 to 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Locally injected PC have been found efficient in managing oral lichen planus, indicating that they are a promising alternative option to steroid therapy for OLP patients, particularly those who have not responded favorably to steroid therapy. However, further research is needed to establish determining the recurrence rate and long-term adverse effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The systematic review protocol has been registered in advance with the PROSPERO database (CRD42023415372).

Comparing the Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Topical Steroid Therapy Combination Regimen With Routine Topical Steroid Therapy in the Management of Oral Lichen Planus Symptomatic Patients

BACKGROUND

For symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP), a wide range of therapeutic approaches have been suggested. To minimize discomfort and symptoms among individuals with symptomatic OLP, extensive therapy is frequently needed. Therefore, finding a new therapeutic approach that may effectively manage OLP's symptoms and signs while having few adverse effects continues to be a difficult task. Recently, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has become a popular alternative therapy option for OLP with no serious side effects.

AIM

The present research was designed to compare the effectiveness of a combination regimen of LLLT in addition to topical steroids with routine topical steroid therapy separately in order to manage patients with bothersome OLP with an extended period of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our trial, 60 patients were chosen and given sequential numbers as they signed up to take part. The participants were divided randomly into two categories: category A (LLLT plus topical steroids) and category B (only topical steroids). The data were entered into the aforementioned prepared case template after receiving informed consent. The aforementioned prepared case template included the following criteria for evaluating the result of the treatment: pain, recurrence, burning sensation, clinical remission, and size of the lesion. Applying the visual analog scale (VAS), pain, as well as burning sensations, were assessed in both categories. With the aid of the Electronic Digital Vernier Caliper (Mitutoyo, China), these individuals were assessed for the dimension of the lesion.

RESULTS

The pain score on day 21 of intervention in category A was 2.5, while it was 4.63 in category B. The difference in findings was significant statistically at day 21 (p = 0.0032). The pain score on day 28 of intervention in category A was 1.3, while it was 3.0 in category B. The difference in findings was significant statistically at day 28 (p = 0.003). The pain score was greater in the control category as compared to the intervention category. The burning sensation score on day 21 of intervention in category A was 2.5, while it was 4.5 in category B. The difference in findings was significant statistically (p = 0.0024). The burning sensation score at the follow-up phase on day 45 of intervention in category A was 1.1, while it was 3.4 in category B. The difference in findings was significant statistically (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Newer therapeutic techniques are becoming accessible to oral specialists for controlling oral mucosal disorders as a result of evolving dental trends. The gold standard for treating people with symptomatic OLP continues to be topical corticosteroids. The therapeutic advantages of topical corticosteroids, however, are considerably outweighed by their complementary effect when paired with newer treatment methods like LLLT.

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy in Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is an autoimmune, mucocutaneous, oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD), which characteristically manifests with chronic, recalcitrant lesions, with frequent flare-ups and remissions. The precise etiopathogenesis of OLP is still debatable, although it is believed to be a T-cell-mediated disorder of an unidentified antigen. Despite the availability of various treatments, no cure for OLP exists due to its recalcitrant nature and idiopathic etiology. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties, in addition to its regulatory action on keratinocyte differentiation and proliferation. These salient properties substantiate the possible role of PRP in the treatment of OLP. Our systematic review focuses on assessing the therapeutic potential of PRP as a treatment modality in OLP. Materials and Methods: We conducted a detailed literature search for studies assessing PRP as a therapeutic regimen in OLP, using the Google Scholar and PubMed/MEDLINE search engines. The search was limited to studies published from January 2000 to January 2023 and included a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. ROBVIS analysis was carried out for the assessment of publication bias. Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel. Results: This systematic review included five articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies demonstrated that PRP treatment considerably ameliorated both objective and subjective symptoms in OLP subjects, with comparable efficacy to the standard corticosteroid treatment. Further, PRP therapy offers the added benefit of minimal adverse effects and recurrences. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that PRP has significant therapeutic potential for treating OLP. However, further research with larger sample sizes is imperative to corroborate these findings.

Emerging potential of phototherapy in management of symptomatic oral lichen planus: A systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials

Phototherapy incorporating photobiomodulation therapy and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy has been utilised as antioxidants in symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP) management; however, its role of intervention remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review of CRD42021227788 PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews in health and social care) registration number was to oversee and determine phototherapy efficacy in patients with symptomatic OLP, identifying and bridging the literature gaps by proposing recommendations for future studies. A search strategy was developed in consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Various electronic databases were exercised to search for randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Several search engines were employed to analyse a total of 177 studies of which nine included. A wide range of utilised laser and light-emitted diode wavelengths between 630 and 808 nm and irradiance ranged between 10 and 13 mW/cm² were noted. 67% of studies reported a high risk of bias and a high heterogeneity obtained from numerical data for quantitative analysis, therefore meta-analysis was impossible to conduct. Despite inconsistency and diversity in phototherapy parameters, treatment protocols, photosensitiser (type, concentration and method of application) and outcome assessment tools, the majority of the studies showed positive results compared with standard care treatments. Hence, a necessity to perform well-designed RCTs with robust methodology is warranted, after acknowledging the current drawbacks and addressing the suggested recommendations highlighted in our review. Moreover, advanced knowledge in understanding further phototherapy-antioxidants molecular mechanistic in symptomatic OLP is required.

Revisiting the evidence of photodynamic therapy for oral potentially malignant disorders and oral squamous cell carcinoma: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This study summarized the available evidence about the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for the management of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

METHODS

An overview of systematic reviews was undertaken based on the 2020 PRISMA statement. Electronic searches were performed in five databases. Studies published up to November 2022 were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies enrolling 9,245 individuals with OPMD (n=7,487) or OSCC (n=1,758) met the selection criteria. All studies examined the efficacy and/or safety of PDT. OPMD were investigated individually in 82.8% of the studies, the most common being oral lichen planus and actinic cheilitis. OSCC was addressed separately in 10.3% of the studies, while only 6.9% evaluated both OPMD and OSCC. Fourteen different types of photosensitizers were described. PDT was used according to the following setting parameters: 417-670 nm, 10-500 mW/cm², 1.5-200 J/cm², and 0.5-143 minutes. Regarding OPMD, leukoerythroplakia showed the best response rates, while oral lichen planus presented a partial or no response in nearly 75% of documented cases. A complete response was observed in 85.9% of OSCC cases, while 14.1% had no resolution.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the response to PDT depended on the type of OPMD/OSCC and the parameters used. Although PDT is an emerging candidate for the treatment of OPMD and OSCC, there is heterogeneity of the methodologies used and the clinical data obtained, particularly regarding the follow-up period.

Treatment of Reticular Oral Lichen Planus with Photodynamic Therapy: A Case Series

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to clinically evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy in treatment of the reticular form of oral lichen planus (OLP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients aged 40-76, with 40 confirmed OLP lesions in total, underwent photodynamic therapy (PDT) following the authors' own protocol, which used 5% 5-aminolevulinic acid as a photosensitizer applied two hours prior to illumination with a diode lamp emitting light at 630 nm and 300 mW. The therapy comprised of 10 weekly illumination sessions and was clinically evaluated between its completion and the end of a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

While the baseline mean size of all 40 lesions was 2.74 ± 3.03 cm², it was 2.97 ± 3.4 cm² for the 30 lesions on the buccal mucosa and 2.02 ± 1.32 cm² for the remaining 10 on the gingiva and tongue. On completion of the therapy, 37 sites improved, including 14 showing complete remission. From that point, the mean size reduction of 56.2% (1.2 ± 1.4 cm²) rose to 67.88% (0.88 ± 1.3 cm²) 12 months later.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that ALA-mediated photodynamic therapy was effective for the reticular form of OLP and may become an optional or complementary treatment.

Different Treatment Modalities of Oral Lichen Planus-A Narrative Review

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown etiology which affects the oral mucosa. OLP varies in its clinical features from a reticular form that is, in most cases, asymptomatic, to atrophic-erosive, and is accompanied by symptoms of burning sensation and pain followed by difficulty in eating. Given the fact that OLP is a disease of unknown etiology, the treatment is symptomatic and involves suppressing the signs and symptoms of the disease using various topical and systemic drugs. The first line of therapy for treating symptomatic OLP is topical corticosteroids, whereas systemic corticosteroids are used for treating persistent lesions that do not respond to local treatment. However, the lack of convincing evidence on the efficacy of previous therapies, including topical corticosteroids, and numerous side effects that have appeared over recent years has resulted in the emergence and development of new therapeutic options. Some of the therapies mentioned are tacrolimus, efalizumab, dapson, interferon, retinoic acid, photochemotherapy with psoralen and ultraviolet A rays (PUVA), aloe vera, antimalarials, antibiotics and others. These therapies only partially meet the properties of efficacy and safety of use, thus justifying the continuous search and testing of new treatment methods.

Photodynamic Therapy, Photobiomodulation and Acetonide Triamcinolone 0.1% in the Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and photobiomodulation (PBM) in the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP) in comparison with the use of topical corticosteroids. Material and methods: Sixty patients with OLP were randomized to three groups: group 1 photodynamic therapy applied once a week for four sessions, with orabase cream; group 2 low-power laser application with orabase cream; and group 3 inactive laser with triamcinolone acetonide 0.1%. Patient pain was evaluated, and the Thongprasom severity score, the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14), and the Hamilton anxiety and depression scale at one and three months of follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05127083). Results: Pain decreased significantly over time in all groups, though the symptoms relapsed over follow-up at one and three months in group 3. The OHIP-14 score improved significantly in groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.05), and this improvement was maintained after three months. Lesion resolution evaluated by the Thongprasom score at one month showed significant differences between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.032) and between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.024). Conclusions: Photodynamic therapy and photobiomodulation once a week for four weeks are safe and non-invasive treatment options, with the important advantage of lacking adverse effects. Further studies are needed to confirm it.

Photodynamic therapy for oral potentially malignant disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) in the treatment of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders (OPMDs) patients.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic search was conducted to retrieve articles published until September 2021. Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes of complete response (CR) and any response (AR) after treatment with PDT using data from single-arm studies, case series and non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs).

RESULTS

In total, 49 articles were included. RCTs revealed insignificant mean difference (MD) in efficacy index between PDT and comparison groups (MD: 1.32; 95% CI:-28.10-30.72, p=0.930). The likelihood of CR (OR:0.84; 95% CI: 0.42-1.71, p=0.637) or AR (OR:2.10; 95% CI: 0.31-14.25, p=0.448) was not different in PDT group when compared with any comparison treatments in NRCTs. CR/AR among single arm studies was 60.6% (95% CI: 50.5-70.7, P<0.001) and 93.7% (95% CI:91.5-95.8, P<0.001) respectively. Higher prevalence of CR and AR was observed for dysplasia or carcinoma insitu (CIS) (CR: 81%, 95% CI: 70.8-91.3, P<0.001; AR: 94.3%; 95% CI: 89-99.6, P<0.001) and actinic cheilitis (AC) (CR: 73.9%, 95% CI: 65.9-81.9, P<0.001; AR:97%; 95% CI:94.9-99, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the patients receiving PDT showed CR, with more than 90% responding to the treatment. PDT was most effective on oral dysplasias, followed by AC.

Effectiveness of methylene blue photosensitizers compared to that of corticosteroids in the management of oral lichen planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of methylene blue (MB) photosensitizers in the management of symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP). Electronic online databases and manual searches were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between January 2010 and February 2022. RCTs comparing photodynamic therapy (PDT) and corticosteroid therapy at baseline and follow-up period were identified. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed regarding visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Thongprasom sign scores, lesion size, response to treatment, and exacerbation of lesions after therapy. The clinical severity was analyzed qualitatively. Five RCTs consisting of 180 samples fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All parameters of VAS score, Thongprasom sign score, lesion size, and response to treatment were statistically non-significant. Our results indicate that both MB-PDT and corticosteroid therapy are effective for the management of OLP. Moreover, MB-PDT is an effective alternative treatment option for OLP when corticosteroids are contraindicated. However, conclusive evidence cannot be ascertained owing to the heterogeneity among the studies.

Fractal Dimension and Texture Analysis of Lesion Autofluorescence in the Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Treatment Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Oral Lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease. Topical steroids are used as the treatment of choice. The alternative is photodynamic therapy (PDT). The study aimed to fabricate optimal biodegradable matrices for methylene blue or triamcinolone acetonide because of a lack of currently commercially available carriers that could adhere to the mucous.

METHODS

The study was designed as a 12-week single-blind prospective randomized clinical trial with 30 patients, full contralateral split-mouth design. Matrices for steroid and photosensitizer and laser device were fabricated. Fractal and texture analysis of photographs, taken in 405, 450, 405 + 450 nm wavelength, of lesions was performed to increase the objectivity of the assessment of treatment.

RESULTS

We achieved two total responses for treatment in case of steroid therapy and one in the case of PDT. Partial response was noted in 17 lesions treated using local steroid therapy and 21 in the case of PDT. No statistically significant differences were found between the effectiveness of both used methods. Statistically significant differences in fractal dimension before and after treatment were observed only in the analysis of photographs taken in 405 + 450 nm wavelength.

CONCLUSIONS

Photodynamic therapy and topical steroid therapy are effective methods for treating OLP. Using a carrier offers the possibility of a more predictable and effective method of drug delivery into the mucous membrane. Autofluorescence enables the detection of lesions especially at the early stage of their development.

Photobiomodulation Therapy vs. Corticosteroid for the Management of Erosive/Ulcerative and Painful Oral Lichen Planus. Assessment of Success Rate during One-Year Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy is a promising approach for the management of inflammatory conditions and autoimmune lesions, such as oral lichen planus (OLP). The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness of PBM in the management of painful and erosive/ulcerative OLP and to compare it with the standard of care that is the topical application of corticosteroids. 96 patients were included with erosive and painful OLP. 48 patients received PBM therapy and 48 received corticosteroids. Data was collected retrospectively on pain using the visual analogue scale; clinical aspects of lesions were assessed with the REU score, and the recurrence rate was noted. One session of PBM therapy with a helium-neon red light (635 nm) was carried out every 48 h for 6 weeks. Treatments were mainly made in contact mode, using a fiber with a diameter of 600 µm (0.6 mm). The output power of the laser beam was calibrated by a power meter. A delivered power of 0.1 W was used for 40 s in a continuous wave (CW), corresponding to a delivered energy of 4 J. The delivered energy density related to the fiber diameter was 1415 J/cm². Each treated point was considered as 1 cm² of diameter. PBM therapy within these parameters was carried out on each point until the totality of the lesion was covered, including the non-erosive OLP area. Furthermore, healthy mucosa within 5 mm of the lesion was also irradiated with the same conditions. This PBM treatment was performed during 6 consecutive weeks. The topical corticosteroid treatment consisted of&nbsp;cortisone application to cover the OLP 3 times/day for 6 weeks. Follow-up was made at 6 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months. After 6 weeks, both groups showed complete absence of pain, and a complete disappearance of ulcerative/erosive areas. No significant difference was found for both groups concerning the recurrence rate of erosive OLP during the follow-up period; values were 0% at 6 weeks for both groups and 79% and 87.5% for the corticosteroid and PBM group, respectively, at 12 months of follow-up. PBM is effective for managing OLP and is significantly similar to topical corticosteroids without any need for the use of medication and with no reported side effects.

A Comparison of Clinical Efficiency of Photodynamic Therapy and Topical Corticosteroid in Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus: A Split-Mouth Randomised Controlled Study

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) to steroid therapy in the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP). Due to the lack of commercially available drug carriers, innovative proprietary solutions were used for both the photosensitiser and the steroid carrier—in the first case to shorten and in the second to extend the contact of the active substance with the mucosa. Methods: A prospective, randomised, single-blind, 12-week full contralateral split-mouth clinical trial of 30 patients with bilateral oral lichen planus was conducted. The prepared matrices were incorporated with active substances methylene blue 5% and 0,05% triamcinolone. The size of lesions, Thongprasom, ABISIS, and VAS scale were evaluated. Results: Relatively high rates of complete remission of lichen were demonstrated: immediately after treatment, 33.3% with PDT and 22.2% with triamcinolone (TA), and after 3 months, 54.2% with PDT and 62.9% with TA. After 3 months of treatment, a reduction in the area of evaluated lesions of 52.7% for PDT and 41.7% for TA was achieved. Conclusion: In situations of topical or general contraindications to oral corticosteroids, resistance to them, or the need for repeated treatment in a short period of time, PDT appears to be a very promising treatment option.

Application of photodynamic therapy in immune-related diseases

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a therapeutic modality that utilizes photodamage caused by photosensitizers and oxygen after exposure to a specific wavelength of light. Owing to its low toxicity, high selectivity, and minimally invasive properties, PDT has been widely applied to treat various malignant tumors, premalignant lesions, and infectious diseases. Moreover, there is growing evidence of its immunomodulatory effects and potential for the treatment of immune-related diseases. This review mainly focuses on the effect of PDT on immunity and its application in immune-related diseases.