Imiquimod for the treatment of oral leukoplakia: A two-center retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the use of topical imiquimod for the management of oral leukoplakia (OL). METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Medical chart reviews were conducted to identify patients with biopsy-proven OL treated with topical 5% imiquimod. Data included OL characteristics, histopathological diagnosis, treatment outcome, and adverse events (AEs). Treatment response was assessed by measuring the percentage reduction in the size of OL lesions. RESULTS: 33 patients (51.5% females; median age: 65 years) with 38 lesions were included. OLs were either localized (23.7%) or multifocal lesions (76.3%), with the majority on the gingiva (86.8%). Pretreatment histopathological diagnoses were dysplasia in 84.2% and nonreactive hyperkeratosis in 15.8%. Most regimens consisted of 60-minute applications, 5-days-a-week, for 6 weeks. At the end of treatment, 81.6% of 38 lesions showed a reduction in size with 68.4% exhibiting ≥50% reduction in size, and 42.1% exhibiting complete resolution. Application site reactions were the most common with pain/soreness/sensitivity occurring in 86.8%. Fatigue was the most frequently reported systemic AE (28.9%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of OL lesions had ≥50% reduction in size. Most AEs were temporary and resolved upon treatment discontinuation. Prospective studies are needed to further assess Imiquimod's effectiveness in OL management.

Dexamethasone solution and dexamethasone in Mucolox™ for the treatment of oral inflammatory ulcerative diseases: A phase II randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Mucolox™ is a mucosal drug delivery system that prolongs the contact time between the oral mucosa and topical corticosteroids, potentially reducing the need for multiple applications daily. This study aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL solution in Mucolox™ for the management of oral inflammatory ulcerative diseases. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL in Mucolox™ (Mucolox™ arm) or dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL solution (standard arm) and instructed to swish/gargle for 5 min three times daily. Changes from pre- to posttreatment patient's sensitivity score (0-10 on a visual analog scale), reticulation/erythema/ulceration score, and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated at baseline and at the end of the study period. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients (75% females) with a median age of 58 years (range 18-79) were enrolled and randomly allocated to the Mucolox™ or standard arm. One subject was excluded. Although statistically significant in both arms, the pre- to posttreatment sensitivity score reduction was higher in the Mucolox™ arm (6.3 vs. 4.4-point reduction). Both arms showed a decrease in the reticulation/erythema/ulceration score between the two visits (7.2 vs. 4.7 [Mucolox™ arm]; 8.0 vs. 4.8 [standard arm]; p > 0.05). Mucolox™ in dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL solution was better tolerated when taste and level of comfort were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective in the management of oral inflammatory ulcerative diseases. Dexamethasone 0.5 mg/5 mL in Mucolox™ was better tolerated and was slightly better in controlling patients' oral sensitivity. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings in oral inflammatory ulcerative diseases patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04540133.

Histopathology of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: An exploratory cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To better characterize the histopathology of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions and to highlight the differences between them in order to support the clinician in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of such conditions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients, clinically diagnosed with oral lichen planus (n = 25) or oral lichenoid lesions (n = 30), were consecutively enrolled in the present study. Subsequently, one blind pathologist reviewed all the biopsy specimens of enrolled subjects following a specific protocol to provide a detailed histopathological description. Demographic, anamnestic, and clinical data were also recorded from all the participants. Patients' data were analysed and compared using the chi-squared test, to provide distinguishing features between the studied conditions. RESULTS: We found a higher and statistically significant number of eosinophils in the oral lichenoid lesions compared with the oral lichen planus group (p < 0.01), an equally promising result was seen regarding plasma cells, which were more represented (p = 0.05) in the oral lichenoid lesions than in the oral lichen planus cases. No statistically significant differences were detected in demographic, anamnestic and clinical data. CONCLUSION: A mixed lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate, consisting of eosinophils and plasma cells, could be used as reliable histological features for the diagnosis of oral lichenoid lesions, as long as compared with findings obtained from the patients' history and clinical examination.