• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• 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
• /
• v.27 no.6
• /
• 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
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• 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
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.199-204
• /
• 2005

Background : Oral leukoplakia(OL) and lichen planus(LP) are common soft tissue lesions characterized by white plaque or striae with erosion. The clinical characteristics of these diseases are similar but the cause and clinical course of them are very different. I compared OL with LP by analysizing clinical and histopathological characteristics and follow up study. Patients and methods : The clinical analysis of 200 patients with OL and LP was performed by review of dental and medical charts. And H/E slides were examined under the light microscope. we examined H/E slides by the light microscope. The follow up study of patients was performed. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS/PC WINDOWS (version 13.0). Results : The age distribution of OL was in the range of 13-75 years old being most prevalent in the 5th decade and there was a tendency of male prevalent. The age distribution of LP was in the range of 20-79 years old being most prevalent in the 4th decade and there was a tendency of female prevalent. The most common site of involvement was the buccal mucosa in both diseases. The most common clinical features of OL and LP were white plaque type and white lesion with striae, respectively. In case of LP, the most common clinical sign was tenderness to palpation. Fifteen cases of OL and eight cases of LP showed epithelial dysplasia. Twelve cases of OL recurred after surgery of oral squamous cell carcinoma and 2 cases of LP were transformed into oral squamous carcinoma. Conclusion : There was statistically significant difference in age, sex, clinical signs of patients, frequency of epithelial dysplasia between OL and LP. The Pearson coefficient correlation efficient was 0.51(p < 0.05). The knowledge of the difference between OL and LP can help understand these diseases.