4.5 Review

Cheilitis glandularis: case report and systematic literature review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 154-168

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16165

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cheilitis glandularis (CG) is a rare inflammatory disease that mainly affects the minor salivary glands in the lower lip. This article presents a case of deep suppurative CG in an 18-year-old black woman. A systematic literature review identified a total of 40 articles reporting CG cases, with varied clinical manifestations and treatment modalities.
Cheilitis glandularis (CG) is a rare inflammatory disease of unknown etiology that affects the minor salivary glands predominantly in the lower lip. In this article, we report the case of an 18-year-old black woman who presented with a deep suppurative type of CG in both lips. In addition, we performed a systematic literature review in five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Embase) to identify CG case reports or case series. A total of 360 references were retrieved in the electronic databases. Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria, and six were retrieved through manual search, totaling 40 articles included in the systematic review. Thirty-nine (68.4%) cases occurred in male individuals and 18 (31.6%) in female individuals. The mean age of affected individuals was 40.9 years. Different clinical manifestations ranging from no symptoms to discomfort, pain, swelling, erythema, eversion of the lip, dilated ductal openings, ulcers, and crust have been reported. Among the included CG cases, 41 affected exclusively the lower lip (71.9%). In four cases, the CG only affected the upper lip (7.0%). In 12 cases, the lesion affected both the lower and upper lips (21.1%). Different treatment modalities were adopted in the management of CG. Although the surgical treatment was indicated (42.1%), the conservative treatment with topical medications, as in the present case, resulted in resolution in 21.0% of cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据