Efficacy of topical hyaluronic acid for symptomatic oral lichen planus: A systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflam-matory disorder with a potential of malignant transformation. Despite the extensive research on the topic, the management of OLP is still quite challenging, with no definitive cure. Objective: The present systematic review assessed the efficacy of topical hyaluronic acid in the management of OLP. Material and Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar was carried out by two independent investigators. All randomized clinical trials that compared the efficacy of hyaluronic acid with other interventions and/or placebo in the management of OLP and fulfilled the following criteria were included: 1) OLP diagnosis was confirmed clinically and histopathologically, 2) the study included systemically healthy patients aged 15 years and older, 3) a minimum sample size of 10, and 4) reporting the main outcomes including pain, erythema, and ulcer size. Case reports, case series, reviews, animal studies, uncontrolled trials were excluded. Results: Four clinical trials involving 234 patients were included. Two studies compared hyaluronic acid with a topical corticosteroid, and two studies compared it with placebo. Only one of the four included studies was at low risk of bias. Overall, topical hyaluronic acid showed good efficacy in alleviating the signs and symptoms of OLP. Two studies found hyaluronic acid significantly more effective in reducing pain and improving clinical signs of OLP compared to placebo. Compared to topical corticosteroids, one study reported comparable results; and one study found hyaluronic acid to be superior to triamcinolone in reducing pain but inferior to triamcinolone in improving the healing time. Conclusion: The limited available evidence suggests that hyaluronic acid may have some benefits in the management of OLP. Further well-designed studies with adequate follow-up periods are highly recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".