4.6 Article

Psychological profile and unexpected pain in oral lichen planus: A case-control multicenter SIPMO studya

Journal

ORAL DISEASES
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 398-414

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13787

Keywords

anxiety; depression; oral lichen planus; pain; sleep disturbance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzed psychological profiles, pain, and oral symptoms in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) and found that OLP patients commonly experience mood disorders, higher levels of pain, and poor correspondence between symptoms and oral lesions.
Objectives To analyze psychological profiles, pain, and oral symptoms in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP). Materials and methods 300 patients with keratotic OLP (K-OLP; reticular, papular, plaque-like subtypes), 300 patients with predominant non-keratotic OLP (nK-OLP; erythematosus atrophic, erosive, ulcerative, bullous subtypes), and 300 controls were recruited in 15 universities. The number of oral sites involved and oral symptoms were recorded. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Total Pain Rating Index (T-PRI), Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and for Anxiety (HAM-D and HAM-A), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) were administered. Results The OLP patients, especially the nK-OLP, showed higher scores in the NRS, T-PRI, HAM-D, HAM-A and PSQI compared with the controls (p-value < .001*). A positive correlation between the NRS, T-PRI, HAM-A, HAM-D, and PSQI was found with the number of oral symptoms and number of oral sites involved. Pain was reported in 67.3% of nK-OLP and 49.7% of K-OLP cases with poor correspondence between the site of lesions and the site of the symptoms. Conclusions Mood disorders are frequently associated with OLP with an unexpected symptomatology correlated with the number of oral symptoms and with the extension of disease suggesting a peripheral neuropathy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available