2019
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.13110
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lactic acid 5% mouth wash vs Kenalog in Orabase 0.1% for treatment and prophylaxis of recurrent aphthous ulcer

Abstract: Background The outcomes of most therapeutic modalities for recurrent aphthous ulcer (RAU) are still unsatisfactory. Aim To evaluate lactic acid 5% mouth wash vs Kenalog in Orabase for treatment and prophylaxis of RAU. Patients/Methods Forty cases with early‐onset idiopathic RAU were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two equal groups; group A patients had used Kenalog in Orabase twice daily, and group B patients had used lactic acid 5% mouth wash 3 times daily. All patients had used the therapy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…-Inclusion and exclusion criteria The inclusion criteria were: clinical trials, articles written in Spanish or English and no more than 5 years since their publication. The exclusion criteria were: articles which were not available in English or Spanish, which Treatment of RAS, review -Studies features (Table 1) All the 17 articles included in this review were written in English and Spanish and were published between 2016 and 2021 (1)(2)(3)5,11,12,14,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). Altogether there were 985 patients examined, divided in 505 cases and 480 controls.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…-Inclusion and exclusion criteria The inclusion criteria were: clinical trials, articles written in Spanish or English and no more than 5 years since their publication. The exclusion criteria were: articles which were not available in English or Spanish, which Treatment of RAS, review -Studies features (Table 1) All the 17 articles included in this review were written in English and Spanish and were published between 2016 and 2021 (1)(2)(3)5,11,12,14,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). Altogether there were 985 patients examined, divided in 505 cases and 480 controls.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 published in Europe (2 from Italy, 1 from Denmark and 1 from Liechtenstein) (5,17,19,20). 3 published in Africa (all them from Egypt) (2,18,22). We divided the studies in the kind of treatment used and the patients were distributed in "cases" if they received the experimental treatment, and "controls" if they received a placebo or another treatment in order to compare their efficacy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Data from 36 RCTs [20,22,24,26,[28][29][30][40][41][42]47,48,50,53,54,[63][64][65]70,71,[75][76][77]80,82,83,[85][86][87][88][89][92][93][94][95][96] with 32 pairwise comparisons among 22 interventions were pooled. In terms of possible adverse events, triamcinolone performed better, with none occurring in 259 subjects, compared to amlexanox, chitosan, dexamethasone, doxycycline, penicillin and placebo.…”
Section: Adverse Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 6 Drugs that are commonly used for topical administration to the skin are usually in the form of creams, lotions, or ointments, 7 while drugs that are usually used for treating oral mucosa wounds are generally in the form of gels. 8 9 The success of topical treatment depends on patient age, selection of appropriate topical agents, location and area of the affected or diseased body, stage of disease, the concentration of active ingredients in the vehicle, methods of application, determination of drug-use duration, and penetration of the topical drug into the skin/mucosa. 10 11 12 Topical drug administration may be considered in patients with gastrointestinal disturbances, contraindications, or difficulty of swallowing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%