Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2013
Intralesional injection versus mouth rinse of triamcinolone acetonide in oral lichen planus: a randomized controlled study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lee Young Chan, Shin Seung Youp, Kim Sung Wan, Eun Young Gyu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, relapse, and adverse effects between intralesional injection and mouth rinse of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP).
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled study.
SETTING: College medical center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients, who had been diagnosed with OLP, were recruited. Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups using intralesional injection or mouth rinse of TA. The severity of pain and burning sensation on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) were assessed at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The signs of OLP were quantified using a special scoring system for OLP. The rate of relapse and the adverse effects were compared between both groups.
RESULTS: The VAS scores for pain and burning mouth sensation and objective scoring for OLP were significantly improved at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks in both groups. The changes in the VAS for burning mouth sensation, OHIP-14, and objective scoring for OLP were similar between both groups. The change in the VAS for pain from baseline to week 1 in the intralesional injection group was significantly higher than in the mouth rinse group. The rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in the mouth rinse group than in the intralesional injection group (44.4% vs 5.0%).
CONCLUSION: The efficacies of both treatments were similar. The rate of adverse effects was significantly lower for intralesional injection of TA than mouth rinse of TA.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled study.
SETTING: College medical center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients, who had been diagnosed with OLP, were recruited. Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups using intralesional injection or mouth rinse of TA. The severity of pain and burning sensation on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) were assessed at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The signs of OLP were quantified using a special scoring system for OLP. The rate of relapse and the adverse effects were compared between both groups.
RESULTS: The VAS scores for pain and burning mouth sensation and objective scoring for OLP were significantly improved at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks in both groups. The changes in the VAS for burning mouth sensation, OHIP-14, and objective scoring for OLP were similar between both groups. The change in the VAS for pain from baseline to week 1 in the intralesional injection group was significantly higher than in the mouth rinse group. The rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in the mouth rinse group than in the intralesional injection group (44.4% vs 5.0%).
CONCLUSION: The efficacies of both treatments were similar. The rate of adverse effects was significantly lower for intralesional injection of TA than mouth rinse of TA.