The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Therapeutic Efficacy of Different Treatment Modalities in Oral Submucous Fibrosis: A Comparative Study

Beenakumary TP, Anju Gopinathan T, Muhammed Najeer VM, Alen Pius

Keywords : Burning sensation, Lycopene, Mouth opening, Oral submucous fibrosis

Citation Information : TP B, T AG, VM MN, Pius A. Evaluation of Therapeutic Efficacy of Different Treatment Modalities in Oral Submucous Fibrosis: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (3):390-394.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2527

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-05-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: Aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of different treatment modalities for oral submucous fibrosis. Materials and methods: Sixty patients were included in the study, which was diagnosed as stage II oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) based on habitual history and clinical findings. Three groups were made after randomization, i.e., group 1: capsule lycopene group, group 2: capsule lycopene and injection dexamethasone, group 3: injection dexamethasone and hyaluronidase group. Symptom severity was done by visual analog scale (VAS) scoring system viz burning sensation/pain in the patients; patient satisfaction was assessed. Vernier calipers were used to measure patients’ maximum mouth opening at day 1, 1st month, 2nd month, 3rd month. Results: Male and female had the mean age of 28.20 ± 4.26 and 39.34 ± 2.12 in group 1, in group 2 was 27.88 ± 7.12 and 40.92 ± 7.16, in group 3 was 28.90 ± 8.69 and 40.10 ± 6.22, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment modalities based on satisfaction. On 2nd month, maximum patients with no pain were more in group 3 followed by group 2, and this was statistically significant. At a 3rd month, the maximum reduction in pain was in group 3 followed by group 2 and group 1. Mouth opening was improved in the group 3 followed by groups 2 and 1, respectively. On 3rd month statistically significant difference was observed between the study groups. Conclusion: The present study concludes that the treatment with dexamethasone + hyaluronidase group showed better results in improvement in mouth opening in OSMF patients than lycopene, lycopene and dexamethasone groups. Improvement in mouth opening, reduced burning sensation in OSMF patients was also shown by lycopene. Hence lycopene can be considered as a good alternative for treatment for OSMF when dexamethasone is contraindicated due to different reasons. Clinical significance: Any oral cavity part can be affected by OSMF including the pharynx. It is a potentially malignant disorder. So early recognition and initiation of the effective regimen for the treatment in both early and advanced cases of OSMF are necessary.

PDF Share
  1. Shwetha V, Yashoda Devi B K. efficacy and safety assessment of oxitard, a herbal antioxidant in oral submucous fibrosis- an observational clinical study. Indian J Med Res Pharmaceut Sci 2016;3(7):48-53.
  2. Anil S, Beena VT. Oral submucous fibrosis in 12 -year-old girl: case report. Journal of Paediatric dentistry.1993;16(2): 120-122.
  3. Ekanayaka RP, Tilakaratne WM. Oral Submucous Fibrosis: Review on mechanisms of pathogenesis and malignant transformation. J Carcinogene Mutagene.2013;1-11.
  4. Goel S, Ahmed J. A comparative study on efficacy of different treatment modalities of oral submucous fibrosis evaluated by clinical staging in population of Southern Rajasthan. J Can Res Ther 2015;11:113-118.
  5. Kumar K, Saraswathi TR, Ranganathan K. Oral submucous fibrosis: A Clinico. histopathologic study in Chennai. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:90.95.
  6. Shah PH, Venkatesh R, More CB, Vassandacoumara V. Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy of Placental Extract with Dexamethasone and Hyaluronic Acid with Dexamethasone for Oral Submucous Fibrosis - A Retrospective Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):ZC63-ZC66.
  7. Yoithapprabhunath TR, Maheshwaran T, Dineshshankar J, et al. Pathogenesis and therapeutic intervention of oral submucous fibrosis. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2013;5(1): 85-88.
  8. Borle RM, Borle SR. Management of oral submucous fibrosis: A conservative approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49: 788-791.
  9. Sinha SN, Jain PK. Intraoral injection of hydrocortisone & placental extract in oral submucous fibrosis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1978;30:103.
  10. Nair DR, Pruthy R, Pawar U, et al. Oral cancer: Premalignant conditions and screening. An update. J Cancer Res Ther 2012;8(Suppl 1):S57-66.
  11. Pindborg JJ, Sirsat SM. Oral submucous fibrosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1966;22:764-779.
  12. Hayes PA. Oral submucous fibrosis in a 4-year-old girl. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59:475-478.
  13. Aara A, Vani C, Satishkumar GP, et al. Comparative study of intralesional dexamethasone, hyauluronidase, and oral pentoxifylline in patients with oral submucous fibrosis. Global J Med Res. 2012;12(7):1-13.
  14. Kumar A, Bagewadi A, Keluskar V, et al. Efficacy of lycopene in the management of oral submucous fibrosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:207-213.
  15. Karkar PK, Puri RK, Venkatachalam VP. Oral submucous fibrosis treatment with hyalase. J Laryngol Otol 1985.;99(1): 57-59.
  16. Rao PK. Efficacy of alpha lipolic acid in adjunct with intralesional steroids and hyaluronidase in the management of oral submucous fibrosis. J Cancer Res Thera. 2010;6(4):508-510.
  17. Selvam NP, Dayanand AA. Lycopene in the management of oral submucous fibrosis. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2013;6(3): 58-61.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.