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.
RCT Entities:
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.