SynthesisBMC oral health2025
The efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of desquamative gingivitis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review synthesizes existing empirical evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment options for desquamative gingivitis (DG), in order to establish evidence-based clinical recommendations on DG clinical management.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven databases to retrieve literature records published from 1990 to 2023, followed by manual searches of reference lists of the included articles. Studies assessing pharmacological interventions for DG with relevant clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Relevant data, including those on clinical improvement and adverse events, were extracted and synthesised to determine the efficacy and safety of the pharmacological agents used in the included articles.
resultsOut of the yielded 624 records and the manual search, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials and cohort studies. MMAT scores ranged from 5 to 7, with a mean score of 5.57. Clobetasol (53.33%) and tacrolimus (26.67%) were the most frequently studied agents, both demonstrating significant reductions in pain and lesion severity. Emerging therapies, such as platelet-rich plasma and bio-adhesive gels containing propolis and nano-vitamin formulations, showed promising results, particularly as adjunctive treatments. Quality of life (QoL) assessments was limited, with only one study employing a validated tool (OHIP-14). Recurrence rates were inconsistently reported with no reported relapses in clobetasol-treated groups during short-term follow-up. Safety profiles differed across pharmacological agents with topical treatments exhibiting mild and transient adverse effects. Systemic agents exhibited a higher risk profile, including candidiasis and haemolysis.
conclusionsClobetasol and tacrolimus remain first-line therapies for DG, supported by their efficacy and manageable safety profiles. Platelet-rich plasma and nano-vitamin-based therapies offer potential alternatives but require further validation. Given the variability in treatment protocols, standardized guidelines and long-term studies are needed to optimize the clinical management. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.