Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Sep 23;16(9):e69973.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.69973. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Intra-lesional Corticosteroids Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin for the Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Khaled A Alshemmari  1 , Saud Alzafiri  1 , Mohammad Alajmi  2 , Abdulaziz Alshammari  1 , Sayed Hashem  3 , Khaled Alzafiri  1 , Reem AlQusaimi  4 , Saleh Alajmi  4 , Mohammd Aladwani  5 , Gheith O Rasheed  6
Affiliations
Review

Intra-lesional Corticosteroids Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin for the Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Khaled A Alshemmari et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a potentially malignant disorder affecting the oral mucosa. Platelet concentrates, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), have emerged as promising alternative treatments to corticosteroids. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of PRP and PRF in the management of patients with OLP. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with OLP comparing intralesional PRP or PRF with corticosteroids up to August 2024. The primary outcomes assessed were changes in lesion size, pain scores, and Thongprasom scores. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used. Data were pooled using summary effect sizes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model based on the DerSimonian-Laird method. Eight studies comprising 157 patients and 250 lesions were included in the final analysis. Compared to corticosteroids, no significant differences were observed among PRF and PRP in terms of changes in lesion size, pain scores, clinical severity scores, and adverse events. NMA ranking showed that PRF was the best-ranking treatment in reducing lesion sizes (SUCRA values: 72.6%, 75.8%, 66.2%, 80.8%, and 77.5% at first, second, third, fourth, and eighth weeks of assessment), followed by corticosteroids, and PRP. Moreover, PRF was the best-ranking treatment in reducing pain score at the first, third, and eighth weeks of assessment (SUCRA values: 91.8%, 86%, and 85.9%), while PRP was the best intervention at the second and fourth weeks of assessment (SUCRA values: 61.3%, and 90.2%). Also, PRF was the best intervention in terms of Thongprasom scores at eight weeks of assessment (SUCRA value: 77.3%), while PRP was the best intervention at the fourth week of assessment with value of 78.1%. PRF and PRP showed comparable results with intralesional corticosteroids in all studied parameters. Considering treatments ranking, PRF was the best intervention. The optimal treatment modality for OLP varies on different clinical conditions.

Keywords: corticosteroids; meta-analysis; oral lichen planus; prf; prp.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram
PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Figure 2
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clinical practice. Lichen planus. Le Cleach L, Chosidow O. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:723–732. - PubMed
    1. Oral lichen planus: an update on pathogenesis and treatment. Lavanya N, Jayanthi P, Rao UK, Ranganathan K. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2011;15:127–132. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cutaneous and mucosal lichen planus: a comprehensive review of clinical subtypes, risk factors, diagnosis, and prognosis. Gorouhi F, Davari P, Fazel N. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:742826. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Update on lichen planus and its clinical variants. Weston G, Payette M. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2015;1:140–149. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oral lichen planus: an update on etiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management. Gupta S, Jawanda MK. Indian J Dermatol. 2015;60:222–229. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources