Open AccessComputerised Photometric Analysis of Photodynamic Therapy versus Triamcinolone Acetonide for Treatment of Erosive Lichen Planus- A Prospective Interventional Study
Author(s) -
Abhik Sikdar,
Smriti Pramod Kumar,
Jugajyoti Pathi,
Sangamesh Ningappa Chinnannavar,
Dhirendra Kumar Singh,
Snehjyoti Jha
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of clinical and diagnostic research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2249-782X
pISSN - 0973-709X
DOI - 10.7860/jcdr/2022/52380.16252
Subject(s) - triamcinolone acetonide , medicine , oral lichen planus , dermatology , photodynamic therapy , prospective cohort study , surgery , chemistry , organic chemistry
Lichen planus is a mucocutaneous disease of unknown aetiology. Topical corticosteroid has been widely used for the treatment purpose so far. In order to overcome the side effects of corticosteroid, Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) has been proposed, but very few studies have been done to evaluate the effect of PDT and corticosteroid on lichen planus using computerised photometric analysis. Aim: To compare the efficacy, using computerised photometric analysis and Red Green Blue (RGB) scoring, of triamcinolone acetonide and PDT in the treatment of erosive lichen planus. Materials and Methods: A prospective interventional study was done in the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, from January 2021 to February, 2021. There were 10 patients of erosive lichen planus who were divided into two groups. Patients of Group A were treated with Triamcinolone acetonide, and Group B patients were treated with PDT, for four weeks. Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Reticular Erosive Ulcerative (REU) Score, Oral Mucositis Index (OMI), photometric analysis using RGB scoring were recorded at baseline, after two weeks and four weeks of treatment. Mann-Whitney U test was used for intergroup comparison, and paired t-test for intra-group comparison. Results: In the study, there was no significant difference (p-value= 1.00) in age among the patients of two groups. At baseline, VAS mean score of Group A patients (5.20±0.837), Group B patients (6.40±1.140) and the p-value was 0.101; REU mean score of Group A patients (5.90±1.245), Group B patients (9.00±2.00) and p-value was significant (0.028); OMI mean score of Group A patients (1.20±0.447), Group B patients (1.60±0.548) and p-value was 0.221; RGB mean score for Group A (110.80±1.212) and Group B (116.52±1.194). After four weeks of treatment, VAS mean score of Group A patients was (0.80±0.84), Group B patients was 0, p-value was significant (0.05); REU mean score Group A (2.70±1.04), Group B (1.00±0.71), p-value was significant 0.031; OMI mean score of both Group A and B was 0; RGB mean score for Group A (113.22±1.89), Group B (121.58±0.96), p-value was significant (0.009). Conclusion: It was found that PDT was better in treating erosive lichen planus and it can be used as an alternative to the standard treatment modalities.