ArticleBMC oral health2022
Lymphocyte and CD62E expression in lichen planus and lichenoid reaction.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Decadal Bibliometric Analysis on the Therapeutic Strategies in Oral Lichen Planus.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Correlations between schizophrenia and lichen planus: a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is difficult to distinguish the clinical and histopathological aspects of oral lichen planus lesions from those of oral lichenoid reaction. Some criteria were proposed to distinguish them, mainly because they have different biological behaviors. The aim of the present study was to compare the lymphocyte population and the expression of E-selectin between these lesions.
methodsParticipants with a clinical diagnosis of oral lichen planus (GOLP) and oral lichenoid reaction (GOLR) who needed to perform a biopsy were selected. The tissue was frozen and immunostaining was performed for CD3/CD4, CD3/CD8, CD4/CLA, CD8/CLA, and CD62E. The analysis of each immunostaining was accomplished using the ImageJ program.
resultsIn total, 25 participants with oral lichen planus and 11 with oral lichenoid reaction were seen. In the evaluation of CD3 + CD4+/CD3 + and CD3 + CD8+/CD3 + proportions, there was a higher percentage of these cells in the oral lichen planus group when compared with the oral lichenoid reaction group (p = 0.027 and p = 0.038 respectively). The average number of CLA + lymphocytes for CD4+/CLA + and CD8+/CLA + in both groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.840; d = 0.363). In GOLP, the number of CD4 + CLA+/E-selectin and CD8 + CLA+/E-selectin was not statistically significant (p = 0.951 and p = 0.454 respectively); neither in GOLR (p = 0.454 and p = 0.989 respectively).
conclusionOur results indicate that CD3 + CD4+, CD3 + CD8+, CD4 + CLA+, CD8 + CLA + lymphocytes and E-selectin are present in both lesions. However, the proportion of CD3 + CD4+/CD3 + and CD3 + CD8/CD3 + cells is higher in the oral lichen planus group when compared with the oral lichenoid reaction group, suggesting that these cells may be important for the etiopathogenic mechanism of these lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.