• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• 제40권4호
• /
• pp.163-168
• /
• 2015

Lichenoid dysplasia is a lichenoid features with epithelial dysplasia clinically and histopathologically similar to oral lichen planus. It can be clinically mistaken for oral lichen planus, but has histopathologic features of dysplasia and a true malignant predisposition. The clinician should be able to differentiate between oral lichen planus and lichenoid dysplasia for the proper management. We experienced a 75-year-old man with erosive, erythematous lesion on the left buccal mucosa previously diagnosed as oral lichen planus. He underwent surgical excision and the final histopathological result confirmed it to be lichenoid dysplasia with massive candidal infection. We report this case with a review of the related literature.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• 제27권6호
• /
• pp.565-569
• /
• 2005

Lichenoid dysplasia is a lesion similar to oral lichen planus with epithelial dysplasia. It can be clinically mistaken for oral lichen planus, but has histologic features of dysplasia and a true malignant predisposition. It is not a variant or transitional form of lichen planus but, instead, represents a distinct entity that has a true potential for malignant transformation. In addition to abnormal epithelial maturation and cytology, lichenoid dysplasia exhibits other histologic features that separate it from oral lichen planus. Lichenoid dysplasia and lichen planus share many clinical and microscopic features, leading to the frequent misdiagnosis of unrecognized lichenoid dysplasia as lichen planus. We experienced a case of lichenoid dysplasia in the oral mucosa. We treated this patient with surgical excision. The patient has now been followed for two months. It is important to recognize this precancerous condition and inspect the excision site and remaining oral mucosa during long-term follow-up.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• 제41권3호
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Oral lichen planus (OLP) has generated many discussions and been associated with much controversy for a long time. A reliable diagnosis of OLP has proven challenging and significant disagreements concerning its diagnosis has continued. Therefore, the aim of this study was to apprehend newly proposed diagnostic criteria of OLP and oral lichenoid lesion (OLL) and to evaluate difference of final diagnosis of OLP and OLL in accordance with type of diagnostic criteria. Also, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was compared to evaluate the value of DIF between two groups. Methods: Fifty-two patients with DIF result were retrospectively reviewed. The selected patients were classified by the modified World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria of OLP and OLL and by criteria proposed by American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (AAOMP). Results of DIF in OLP and OLL were classified by deposition intensity or pattern of fibrinogen. The classification of fluorescence pattern in each specimen was graded as positive, possibly positive or negative. Results: Patients diagnosed as OLP were a few more when the modified WHO diagnostic criteria were used than when criteria proposed by AAOMP were used. There was no statistical difference of DIF between OLP and OLL by applying the WHO modification criteria or criteria proposed by AAOMP. Conclusions: The final diagnosis of OLP could be changed in accordance with type of diagnostic criteria and difference of DIF between OLP and OLL was not found.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• 제41권1호
• /
• pp.16-20
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is relatively common mucosal disease in clinical dentistry. OLP is intractable and regarded having malignant potential. Until now, there is some debate on how far OLP can be malignant, and which characteristics can be a risk factor for malignant transformation. Clinician need to know some differences between OLP and lesions similar to OLP to manage properly and suppose prognosis correctly. Therefore, the aim of this study was to divide clinical OLP into two groups and to compare the results of direct immunofluorescence (DIF) between two groups. Methods: This study was conducted on outpatients who visited at the department of Oral Medicine in Chonbuk National University Hospital from January 2007 to November 2015. Patients with DIF result were retrospectively reviewed. The selected patients were classified 'clinical typical of OLP' (CTO) or 'clinical compatible with OLP' (CCW) by modified World Health Organization diagnostic criteria of OLP and oral lichenoid lesion. Results: DIF were classified by deposition intensity or pattern of anti-human antibody and fibrinogen. The classification of fluorescence pattern in each specimen was graded as positive, possibly positive or negative. Conclusions: Both CTO and CCW had positive and possibly positive pattern. Prevalence of positive pattern was 68.8% in CTO and 52.6% in CCW and that of possibly positive pattern was 9.4% in CTO and 5.3% in CCW. Prevalence of negative was 21.8% in CTO and 42.1% in CCW.

• 치위생과학회지
• /
• 제5권4호
• /
• pp.199-204
• /
• 2005

51예의 구강 백반증과 149예의 편평태선의 임상적 발현 양상을 비교 분석하고 병리조직 소견에 따른 환자 예후를 추적하여 임상적 병리조직학적 차이점을 고찰하였다. 분석 결과, 연령 분포와 성별, 임상적 특징, 환자의 임상 증상, 상피 이형성 빈도, 임상 추적 관찰 결과 재발 여부 등에 있어 차이를 나타냈다. 구강 백반증과 편평태선의 임상적인 감별점은 구강백반증의 경우 각화증을 유발한 원인, 즉 협점막과 혀의 측면부위에 가해질 수 있는 만성적 자극, 흡연 등의 원인을 제거했을 때 소실되는지의 여부, 편평태선의 경우 전형적으로 양측성 발생과 다발성 병소, 통증이나 압통, 불쾌감과 작열감 등의 증상, 동반되는 피부 병소 등을 들 수 있다. 임상 진단에서 확진을 하지 못하는 경우는 조직 생검을 통하여 최종 진단을 내릴 수 있다.