Search

Objectives: To estimate the economic costs of oral lichen planus (OLP) through a multicenter university hospital–based outpatient study conducted in Italy and Finland. Materials and methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted on patients affected by OLP to evaluate the economic cost of managing the disease. Direct costs concerning diagnostic procedures, therapeutic management, and follow-up visits were obtained from clinical records. Statistics was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics. Results: One hundred and eight patients with a confirmed diagnosis of OLP (81 women and 27 men), 58 Italians and 50 Finnish, were enrolled in this study. The mean annual cost was 1087.2 euros per patient. The mean annual cost was higher in Finnish than in Italian cohort (1558.7 euros vs. 680.7 euros—p < 0.05). Within the Italian cohort, the local immunosuppressive therapy group and atrophic and erosive OLP type had a higher cost (p < 0.05). Within the Finnish cohort, the local immunosuppressive therapy group had a higher cost (p < 0.05). Conclusions: OLP-related costs are very similar to other chronic oral disorders (i.e., periodontitis) with differences between investigated countries. Moreover, patients with more severe clinical features, who need immunosuppressive therapy, are facing more expensive costs. Clinical relevance.: In this multicenter cost of illness study, we estimated the direct health care costs of OLP and we found that patients with more severe clinical features, who therefore need symptomatic therapy, are facing more expensive costs.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative course in patients undergoing oral mucosal biopsies, considering clinical and patient’s perception variables potentially correlated to poor healing. Subjects and methods: Eighty patients underwent oral biopsies. All the variables connected with the surgery were recorded, and the harvested volume was calculated through image software (ImageJ, NIH, Betesda, USA). To evaluate the postoperative discomfort, the OHIP-14 and the numeric rating scale of pain (NRS) were administered at 6 h, 7 days and 21 days after biopsy. Results: Six hours after the biopsy, 22 (OHIP-14 ≥ 20) and 24 (NRS ≥ 4) patients experienced a troublesome or painful healing, respectively. A significant statistical correlation between poor healing and high scores of NRS and OHIP was detected (Pearson’s correlation test p < 0.05). Higher values of OHIP-14 were correlated to the type of lesion (OR = 1.165; p < 0.05), whereas high values of NRS were correlated to the use of systemic drugs (p < 0.05). No surgical variable had a significant statistical correlation with any of the outcomes. Conclusions: The clinical evaluation was correlated with the patient’s perception of pain and discomfort. This finding could be suggestive of the fact that wound healing can be reliably monitored with the help of these tools. Clinical relevance: Patient perception can be a predictor of the healing of biopsied tissues.