Oral diseases · 2025
Interventions for Treating Actinic Cheilitis: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fernández Herranz Alejandra, González-Serrano José, Caponio Vito Carlo Alberto, de Arriba Lorenzo, Hernández Gonzalo, López-Pintor Rosa María
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Actinic cheilitis (AC) is a sun-related oral potentially malignant disorder with no established optimal treatment. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of available treatments for AC.
METHODS: Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) comparing AC treatments with placebo or other interventions were included. In February 2025, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central, SciELO, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed for each clinical outcome.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs, involving 230 participants, were included. Treatments assessed included daylight or conventional photodynamic therapy (PDT) with or without methyl aminolevulinate (MAL), imiquimod, and CO2 laser, among others. The highest 3-month clearance rates were observed with MAL plus indoor daylight PDT, CO2 laser, and electrodessication. At 6 months, the CO2 laser remained most effective. Limitations include five trials with a high risk of bias and the inability to perform meta-analysis due to outcome measures heterogeneity and lack of standardized RCTs.
CONCLUSION: Due to limitations, the most effective AC treatment remains undetermined. Future research must improve methodology, assess standardized therapies, and include long-term follow-up to assess recurrences and malignant transformation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42024561899.
METHODS: Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) comparing AC treatments with placebo or other interventions were included. In February 2025, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central, SciELO, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed for each clinical outcome.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs, involving 230 participants, were included. Treatments assessed included daylight or conventional photodynamic therapy (PDT) with or without methyl aminolevulinate (MAL), imiquimod, and CO2 laser, among others. The highest 3-month clearance rates were observed with MAL plus indoor daylight PDT, CO2 laser, and electrodessication. At 6 months, the CO2 laser remained most effective. Limitations include five trials with a high risk of bias and the inability to perform meta-analysis due to outcome measures heterogeneity and lack of standardized RCTs.
CONCLUSION: Due to limitations, the most effective AC treatment remains undetermined. Future research must improve methodology, assess standardized therapies, and include long-term follow-up to assess recurrences and malignant transformation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42024561899.