This study identified an association between GT and anti-hypertensive medications, as well as the use of Swedish snus. It also found differences in the activities and symptoms of the lesions between referred patients and their counterparts who were seen in general dental practice; these parameters influenced the results when these conditions were taken into account.

Objectives: To study the severity of symptoms and estimate the prevalence of oral mucosal lesions in a non-referral adult Swedish population, as registered by general dental practitioners. This study also aims to evaluate the possibi-lity of dental practitioners collecting large quantities of reliable and accurate clinical data on oral mucosal lesions. Study Design: Data from 6,448 adult Swedish patients were collected by general dental practitioners using a standardized registration method. A correlation analysis between a group with oral mucosal lesions and a control group, with no oral mucosal lesions, was performed for various parameters such as symptoms from the oral mucosa, systemic diseases, medication, allergy history, tobacco habits and the patient’s own assessment of their general health. In addition, clinical photos were taken of all oral mucosal lesions in order to determine the degree of agreement between the diagnoses made by general dental practitioners and those made by oral medicine specialists. Results: A total of 950 patients (14.7%) presented with some type of oral mucosal lesion and of these, 141 patients (14.8%) reported subjective symptoms. On a visual analogue scale, 43 patients (4.5%) scored their symptoms <30, 65 patients (6.8%) scored their symptoms ?30, and 28 patients (2.6%) scored their symptoms ?60. The most debilitating condition was aphthous stomatitis and the most common oral mucosal lesion was snuff dipper’s lesion (4.8%), followed by lichenoid lesions (2.4%) and geographic tongue (2.2%). There was agreement between the oral medicine specialists and the general practitioners over the diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions on the basis of a clinical photograph in 85% of the cases (n=803). Conclusions: Nearly 15% of the patients with oral mucosal lesions reported symptoms. General practitioners could contribute significantly to the collection of large quantities of reliable and accurate clinical data, although there is a risk that the prevalence of oral mucosal lesions may be underestimated. Key words:Epidemiology, oral mucosal lesions, oral medicine, examiner reliability.

BackgroundThe literature hardly contains information on how patients suffering from oral lichen planus could be managed by dentists.Material and MethodsBased on the limited available literature and particularly on the long-term clinical and histopathological experience of one of the authors, suggestions on how dentists could manage patients with oral lichen planus have been put forward. Results: In most cases, the dentist should be able to establish a correct diagnosis.ResultsIn most cases, the dentist should be able to establish a correct diagnosis. Occasionally, the dentist may call upon a specialist, usually an oral medicine specialist or an oral and maxillofacial surgeon for confirmation of the diagnosis, possibly a biopsy procedure, and management of the patient in case of severe symptoms. Proper patient information is of utmost importance in the management.ConclusionsGeneral dentists can be expected to manage the majority of patients with oral lichen planus. Some patients may need to be referred for diagnostic purposes to a specialist; this is also the case for the rare patient with severe symptoms, possibly requiring systemic treatment. Key words:Oral mucosal disease, oral lichen planus.

In this study, the use of levothyroxine was associated with OLP, which in turn suggests a possible connection with hypothyroidism.

No abstract