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
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».