Extended Erosive Oral Lichen Planus Treated with a very Low-Level Laser Therapy: A Case Report

Abstract

Background: Oral lichen planus is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disease that affects the skin and mucous membrane and involves about 1-2% of the population. The management of this pathology aims to control symptoms. Clinically, it can appear as a plaque, in reticular form, or an erythematous/atrophic form. The treatment options include different classes of drugs and non-drug therapies such as a laser. In addition, most drug treatments include numerous side effects. Objective: The aim of this work is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a particular type of very Low-Level-Laser Therapy for the management of an erosive oral lichen planus case. Methods: An extensive form of erosive Oral Lichen Planus was treated using a Low-Level Laser Therapy with a 660 nm diode laser. The treatment was performed once per week for two sessions of five minutes each. Different outcome variables were examined: the size of lesions, evolution of pain symptoms, and presence of side effects and stability of the therapeutic results in the follow-up period. Results: After a week, the lesion appeared more homogenous, and the erythematous areas underwent a reduction with a simultaneous decrease in symptoms. After two weeks, the lesion seemed completely healed with the disappearance of pain. The follow-up continued for the other four months, and no relapse was reported. No adverse effects were observed during the study. Conclusion: This study suggests that Low-Level Laser Therapy with very low power parameters could be a safe and successful treatment for extended oral erosive lichen planus lesions.

Emerging potential of phototherapy in management of symptomatic oral lichen planus: A systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials

“…These included 25 aPDT studies, 15 PBM therapy studies and one study which had combined aPDT and PBM therapy study protocol. Twenty‐five studies were excluded based on their title and abstracts [systematic reviews ( n = 5) [67, 68, 101–103], literature reviews ( n = 3) [65, 104, 105], aPDT case series/reports ( n = 8) [59, 60, 106–111], PBM therapy case series/reports ( n = 7) [112–118], conference abstract ( n = 1) [119], letter to editor ( n = 1) [120]]. Therefore, 26 studies qualified for full text reading (aPDT studies: n = 17, PBM therapy studies: n = 8, aPDT +PBM therapy study: n = 1) (inter‐reviewer agreement, κ = 0.96).…”