ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Evaluating calcineurin inhibitors as alternatives to steroids in treating Oral Lichen Planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Oral Lichen Planus is a chronic inflammatory disease and a potentially malignant disorder of the oral mucosa. We aimed to investigate the possibility of replacing the gold-standard steroids (ST) due to their propensity for drug tolerance and numerous associated side effects. Recently, calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) have emerged as a promising alternative to ST. The main objective of the recent study was to compare the therapeutic effects of CNI and ST on OLP through pain severity, lesion morphology, and adverse effects. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in 4 databases (Pubmed, Embase, Central, and Web of Science) on November 26th, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for the analysis, which compared topically used CNIs, STs, or placebo. The outcomes were pain severity, oral mucosa morphology, and safety (adverse effects, especially transient burning). Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with the random-effects model were calculated in the quantitative synthesis and interpreted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of eleven RCTs were selected for quantitative analysis. Topically applied ST tended to decrease pain after four weeks of treatment (MD: -0.06, 95%CI: -0.55; 0.44) and promoted healing better (MD: -0.08, 95%CI: -0.74; 0.57) than measured in CNI therapy. Transient burning occurred more often in the CNI group (OR: 2.45, 95%CI: 0.55; 10.85). Discussion: Topical STs and topically used CNIs have a similar effect. However, data show a higher rate of side effects with CNI, particularly transient burning during the first two days of treatment. Clinical relevance: Topical STs and topically used CNIs have a similar effect. However, data show a higher rate of side effects with CNI, particularly transient burning during the first two days of treatment. Topically applied STs may remain the gold standard for symptomatic OLP. The evidence is currently insufficient to support replacing ST with CNI in OLP treatment in routine clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023486435, PROSPERO CRD42023486435.
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.