Users Online: 108
Home Print this page Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Ahead of Print Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Adv Biomed Res 2012,  1:73

Salivary IgA and IgG in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid reactions diseases


1 Department of Oral Medicine and Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Epidemiologist, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Submission13-Feb-2012
Date of Acceptance15-May-2012
Date of Web Publication31-Oct-2012

Correspondence Address:
Farimah Sardari
Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.102977

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the level of salivary IgA and IgG in oral lichen planus (OLP) and oral lichenoid reactions (OLR) patients as diagnostic factors to the differential diagnosis of OLP, OLR diseases.
Materials and Methods: Saliva sample were obtained from 50 OLP, 50 OLR patients and 50 healthy subjects between April 2010 and October 2011. The clinical relevant data taken into account were: Demographical data, previous medication, and level of salivary IgA and IgG. Each sample was assessed to determine the level of salivary IgA by ELISA test and salivary IgG by radial immune diffusion.
Results: The mean of salivary IgA and IgG in patients were 119.01 ± 114.18 mic/ml and 3.25 ± 1.81 mic/ml, respectively. There were no significant differences for salivary IgA and IgG between OLP and OLR, but the mean of salivary IgA and IgG in OLP and OLR patients were significantly more than normal group (P-value < 0.05). The cut-off value was set at >72 mic/ml for salivary IgA in both OLP and OLR groups and set at >3.7 mic/ml for salivary IgG. On comparing the AUCs, there was no significant difference between AUCs for IgA (0.715 ± 0.05vs. 0.69 ± 0.5, for OLP and OLR patients, respectively,P-value = 0.7) and IgG (0.681 ± 0.05 vs. 0.548 ± 0.06, for OLP and OLR patients, respectively, P-value = 0.1).
Conclusions: Our results showed that the level of salivary IgA and IgG in OLP and OLR patients is higher than healthy controls, but they cannot be used as diagnostic factors to the differential diagnosis of OLP and OLR.

Keywords: IgA, IgG, oral lichen planus, oral lichenoid reactions


How to cite this article:
Ghaleyani P, Sardari F, Akbari M. Salivary IgA and IgG in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid reactions diseases. Adv Biomed Res 2012;1:73

How to cite this URL:
Ghaleyani P, Sardari F, Akbari M. Salivary IgA and IgG in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid reactions diseases. Adv Biomed Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Mar 29];1:73. Available from: http://www.advbiores.net/text.asp?2012/1/1/73/102977


  Introduction Top


Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory and autoimmune disease, affecting the skin, nails, scalp, and mucosal membranes. The reported prevalence rates of OLP vary from 0.5% to 2.2% of the general population. It is more frequently observed, mainly in middle-aged women. [1],[2],[3],[4] Although OLP is relatively common, there is so controversy, mainly in relation to the possibility of it becoming a malignant condition. [5],[6],[7] Also, the WHO considers OLP as a systemic disorder associated with a rise in the danger of cancer. [8]

However, the etiology of OLP remains unknown with a multifactorial pathogenesis. [1] There are many fundamental factors that have been associated, such as: Anxiety, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, intestinal diseases, stress, hypertension, infections, and genetic predisposition. [9],[10]

The diagnosis of OLP is usually achieved by clinical and histological examination. The clinical appearance of the lesions is the first diagnosis of OLP. Then, it is subsequently confirmed by a biopsy and a histopathological study. Most of authors believed that a biopsy is necessary, given that it lets us to check the clinical diagnosis and mark the differential diagnosis with other lesions. [11]

Based on clinical and histological standpoint, oral lichenoid reactions (OLR) are similar to oral lichen planus, [12] while the etiology of OLRs is related to the contact with specific agents, such as dental materials [13],[14],[15],[16] drugs [17,18] and flavoring agents. [19],[20] Whereas restorative dental materials play an important role in the appearance of OLR, [21] and many studies have documented contact hypersensitivity to dental materials such as amalgam, [22] composite [23] and dental acrylics. [24] Additionally, other conditions such as lupus erythematosus, erythroleukoplakia, leukoplakia, and proliferative verrucous leukoplakia may present clinical and histopathology characteristics similar to oral lichen planus. [25]

The differential diagnosis between a lichen planus and a lichenoid reaction will be determined by a combination of clinical and histological criteria of the lichen planus itself. Cases of lichen planus must have had all of the clinical and histological criteria. On the other hand, lichenoid reaction includes: 1- patients with typical lichen planus clinically but not histologically, 2- patients with typical lichen planus histologically but not clinically, 3- patients who are both clinically and histologically only compatible with lichen planus. [26]

During recent years, it has become more evident that the immune system has a primary role in the development of the oral lichen planus. It was theorized that serum level of immunoglobulin may play a role in the pathogenesis of oral mucosal diseases, or reflect clinical changes in these conditions. [27] Increased levels of serum IgA and IgG in patients with OLP were reported previously. [28],[29] Ghalianiet al.[30] showed significant differences in distribution of IgG+ cells among different locations in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions separately; but the differences between distribution of IgG+ cells between the two groups of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions were not significant. Sistiget al.[27] showed increasing levels of salivary IgA and IgG in these patients. Since the role of immunofluorescence and immunohistochemical stains inthe establishment of adiagnosis of OLP is limited [31] and alsolittle is known about the levels of salivary IgA and IgG in OLP andOLR patients, salivary IgA and IgG levelshave not yet been comprehensively studied among OLP and OLR patients.Treatments for both conditions, on the other hand, are different andbecause of the possibility of malignant transformation, one of themshould be carefully followed. Therefore, presentstudy was designed to assess the level of salivary IgA and IgG in OLP and OLRpatients and also in healthy controls as diagnostic factors for thedifferential diagnosis of OLP and OLR diseases.


  Materials and Methods Top


The study population consisted of 100 patients (50 OLP patients and 50 OLR patients) who referred to Dental Clinic of the University of Isfahan, Iran between April 2010 and October 2011. Also, 50 healthy subjects without any oral and systemic disease were recruited as control group. Patients of any age and gender with clinically- and histopathologically-confirmed diagnosis of OLP and OLR were eligible if they had no history of smoking, diabetes, hepatitis, and any systemic or infection diseases. The definitive clinical and histopathological criteria used to distinguish and categorize the lesions were based on the WHO criteria. [12] OLP patients with history of any systemic or topical medication for their oral disease 2 months prior to study were not eligible for the trial. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Isfahan University School of Dental Medicine, and written informed consent was obtained from the participants in this study.

The clinical relevant data taken into account were: Demographical data, previous medication, and level of salivary IgA and IgG. ELISA test was used to determine salivary IgA (Human IgA Saliva Diametra kit, the binding Site, Italy), and salivary IgG was determined by radial immuno-diffusion (Human IgG kit, binding site group ltd., Birmingham, UK).

Saliva samples were obtained from all patients and healthy controls. Saliva collection was performed as described previously by Wu-Wang et al.[32] . To avoid circadian variations, the saliva samples were collected between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Participants were instructed to collect saliva in their mouth for 5 min without swallowing and to spit into a clean glass tube. Then, pooled samples were immediately placed in a -20°c freezer until required.

Statistical analyzes were done using SPSS-18. Data are presented as means ± 1SD, number (%) or median [IQR] as appropriate. Statistical analysis diagnostic parameters of IgA and IgG were optimized by using the ROC analysis. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed by plotting on the X-axis the 1-specificity and on the Y-axis the sensitivity. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity are a function of the selected cut-off value. The area under the curves (AUC) was calculated for IgA and IgG for both OLP and OLR patients in comparison with healthy controls, and were compared using the method of Hanley and McNeil. [33] Results were regarded as significant at or below the 5% probability level.


  Results Top


Of 150 subjects enrolled in this study, 14 subjects (OLP group, 6; OLR group, 2 and control group 6 subjects) refused informed consent and were excluded. Finally, 136 subjects were included in the analysis. The mean age of the subjects was 44.13 ± 9.79 years, 50 subjects (36.8 %) were male, and 86 subjects (63.2 %) were female. The mean of IgA and IgG in patients were 119.01 ± 114.18 and 3.25 ± 1.81, respectively. [Table 1] showed characteristics and clinical findings in studied groups. Age and sex were not statistically significant among groups (P-value > 0.05), but the mean of IgA and IgG in OLP and OLR groups were significantly more than in normal group (P-value < 0.05). Bonferroni test showed that differences in mean of IgA between OLP group with normal group (P-value = 0.004) and OLR group with normal group (P-value = 0.014) were statistically significant. Also, mean of IgG in OLP group was higher in compared with normal group (P-value = 0.014).
Table 1: Characteristics, salivary IgA and IgG in study population

Click here to view


To determine the cut-off value, we performed a ROC analysis of the IgA and IgG from 44 OLP patients, 48 OLR patients, and 44 normal saliva cases as controls. AUC for IgA was 0.715 and 0.69 for OLP and OLR patients respectively, and the cut-off was set at >72 for both groups [Figure 1]. Also, AUC for IgG was 0.681 and 0.548 for both groups respectively, and the cut-off was set at >3.7 for both groups [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Receiver-operating-characteristic curve. Test performed for IgA with saliva sample from lichen planus patients ------ (n = 44, AUC=0.715, P-value=0.0001) and lichenoid reaction patients; (n = 48, AUC=0.69, P-value=0.0005) and controls (n = 44). Based on the method of Hanley and McNeil,[33] there was no significant difference between AUCs for IgA (0.715 ± 0.05 vs. 0.69 ± 0.5, for lichen planus and lichenoid reaction patients, respectively, P-value=0.7). AUC = Area under the curve

Click here to view
Figure 2: Receiver-operating-characteristic curve. Test performed for IgG with saliva sample from lichen planus patients ------ (n = 44, AUC=0.681, P-value=0.0015) and lichenoid reaction patients; (n = 48, AUC=0.548, P-value=0.42) and controls (n = 44). Based on the method of Hanley and McNeil,[33] there was no significant difference between AUCs for IgG (0.681 ± 0.05 vs. 0.548 ± 0.06, for lichen planus and lichenoid reaction patients, respectively, P-value=0.1). AUC = Area under the curve

Click here to view


Cut-off value, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of the IgA and IgG were shown in [Table 2]. Applying the cut-off value of >72 defined by ROC analysis for IgA showed that 28 of 44 OLP patients and 28 of 48 OLR patients were positive; also, based on the cut-off value of >3.7 for IgG, 28 of 44 OLP patients and 16 of 48 OLR patients were positive. On comparing the AUCs using the method of Hanley and McNeil, [33] there was no significant difference between AUCs for IgA (0.715 ± 0.05 vs. 0.69 ± 0.5, for OLP and OLR patients, respectively, P-value = 0.7) and AUCs for IgG (0.681 ± 0.05 vs. 0.548 ± 0.06, for OLP and OLR patients, respectively, P-value = 0.1).
Table 2: Cut of value, AUC, Sensitivity and specificity of the IgA and IgG in patients with lichen planus and lichenoid reaction compared with normal saliva patients

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Attention should be given to the difficulty in founding the differential diagnosis by clinicians unaware of the two OLP and OLR diseases. Whereas, the high rate of microscopic finding of OLP compared with the low frequency of microscopic finding of OLR highlights this concern. Since that OLP should be more carefully followed because of the possibility of malignant transformation, the definitive diagnosis should be recognized as early as possible. Direct immunofluorescence detects immunoglobulins and complement components within biopsy specimens of patient's tissue and use in diagnosis of bullous diseases and other immune diseases, such as oral lichen planus, especially those in subepidermal bullous diseases that often have overlap in clinical and histological findings. Its use has assisted the understanding of the physiopathology of some bullous diseases, making possible new classifications and gnosologic replacements. [34] In present study, salivary IgA and IgG in OLP and OLR patients were compared with healthy controls and also compared between OLP and OLR patients as diagnostic factors to the differential diagnosis of diseases. Increased concentrations of both IgA and IgG, which were detected in the saliva of patients with OLP, compared with healthy controls. This is similar to the results obtained in previous studies, which reported increasing the level of serum IgA and IgG [35],[36],[37] in OLP patients. Also, Sistiget al.[27] found that in patients with OLP, all IgG and IgA subclasses were increased when compared with the healthy controls and concluded that this could implicate an important role of salivary immunoglobulin in pathogenesis of OLP.


  Conclusion Top


Our results showed differences in the level of salivary IgA and IgG in OLR patients when compared with healthy controls. These results are difficult to compare because there are no data on salivary IgA and IgG in OLR patients.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on comparing salivary IgA and IgG levels in patients with OLP and OLR. The results of this study showed that no significant differences in the salivary IgA and IgG were found between OLP and OLR patients, whereas, the cut-off value for IgA was set at >72 and the cut-off value for IgG was set at >3.7 for both OLP and OLR patients. Therefore, these results suggest that the salivary IgA and IgG have low diagnostic value and do not play an important role in the differential diagnosis between a lichen planus and a lichenoid reaction; however, this should be confirmed by further studies.

In conclusion, our results showed that the level of salivary IgA and IgG in OLP and OLR patients is higher than healthy controls, but they cannot be used as diagnostic factors to the differential diagnosis of OLP and OLR. Though, both OLP and OLR diseases sound to be the same.

 
  References Top

1.Fernández-González F, Vázquez-Álvarez R, Reboiras-López D, Gándara-Vila P, García-García A, Gándara-Rey JM. Histopathological findings in oral lichen planus and their correlation with the clinical manifestations.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:641-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Sugerman PB, Savage NW, Walsh LJ, Zhao ZZ, Zhou XJ, Khan A, et al.The pathogenesis of oral lichen planus.Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2002;13:350-65.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Torrente-Castells E, Figueiredo R, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Clinical features of oral lichen planus. A retrospective study of 65 cases. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:685-90.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Nagao T, Ikeda N, Fukano H, Hashimoto S, Shimozato K, Warnakulasuriya S. Incidence rates for oral leukoplakia and lichen planus in a Japanese population. J Oral Pathol Med 2005;34:532-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Edwards PC, Kelsch R. Oral lichen planus: Clinical presentation and management. J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68:494-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Laeijendecker R, Joost TV, Tank B, Oranje AP, Neumann HA. Oral lichen planus in childhood.Pediatr Dermatol 2005;22:299-304.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Mignogna MD, Lo Russo L, Fedele S. Gingival involvement of oral lichen planus in a series of 700 patients. J ClinPeriodontol 2005;32:1029-33.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Pindborg JJ, Reichart PA, Smith CJ, van der Waal I. Histological typing of cancer and precancer of the oral mucosa. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer (World Health Organization International Histological Classification of Tumours);1997. p. 87.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Ismail SB, Kumar SKS, Zain RB. Oral lichen planus and lichenoid reactions: Etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, management and malignant transformation. J Oral Sci 2007;49:89-106.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Scully C, Beyli M, Ferreiro MC. Update on oral lichen planus: Etiopathogenesisand management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1998;9:86-122.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Eisen D, Carrozzo M, Bagan Sebastian JV, Thongprasom K. Number V Oral lichen planus: Clinical features and management. Oral Dis 2005;11:338-49.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Al-Hashimi I, Schifter M, Lockhart PB, Wray D, Brennan M, Migliorati CA, et al. Oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 2007;103:1-12.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Laine J, Kalimo K, Happonen RP. Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis 1997;36:141-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Ibbotson SH, Speight EL, Macleod RI, Smart ER, Lawrence M. Relevance and effect of amalgam replacement in subjects with oral lichenoid reactions. Br J Dermatol 1996;134:420-3.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Kalimo K. Oral lichenoid lesions caused by allergy to mercury in amalgam fillings. Contact Dermatitis 1996;35:69.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Blongren J, Axéll T, Sandahl O, Jontell M. Adverse reactions in the oral mucosa associated with anterior composite restorations. J Oral Pathol Med 1996;25:311-3.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.McCartanBE, McCreary CE. Oral lichenoid drug eruptions. Oral Dis 1997;3:58-63.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Menni S, Barbareschi M, Fargetti G, Hendrickx I. Lichenoid eruptions of the mouth mucosa induced by lithium carbonate. 2 cases. Ann DermatolVenereol 1995;122:91-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Miller RL, Gould AR, Bernstein ML. Cinnamon-induced stomatitis venenata, clinical and characteristic histopathologic features. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73:708-16.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Morton CA, Garioch J, Todd P, Lamey PJ, Forsyth A. Contact sensitivity to menthol and peppermint in patients with intra-oral symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32:281-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Do Prado RF, Marocchio LS, Felipini RC. Oral lichen planus versus oral lichenoid reaction: Difficulties in the diagnosis. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:361-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Thornhill MH, Pemberton MN, Simmons RK, Theaker ED. Amalgam-contact hypersensitivity lesions and oral lichen planus.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 2003;95:291-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Lind PO. Oral lichenoid reactions related to composite restorations. Preliminary report.ActaOdontolScand 1988;46:63-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Van Loon LA, Bos JD, Davidson CL. Clinical evaluation of fifty-six patients referred with symptoms tentatively related to allergic contact stomatitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;74:572-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Lodi G, Scully C, Carrozzo M, Griffiths M, Sugerman PB, Thongprasom K. Current controversies in oral lichen planus: Report of an international consensus meeting. Part 2.Clinical management and malignant transformation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 2005;100:164-78.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Van der Meij EH, Van der Waal I. Lack of clinicopathologic correlation in the diagnosis of oral lichen planus based on the presently available diagnostic criteria and suggestions for modifications. J Oral Pathol Med 2003;32:507-12.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Sistig S, Vucicevic-Boras V, Lukac J, Kusic Z. Salivary IgA and IgG subclasses in oral mucosal diseases. Oral Dis 2002;8:282-6  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Albanidou-Farmaki E, Kayavis I, Sideropoulos I, Papanayiotou P, Polymenidis Z. Serum immunoglobulins IgA, IgG and IgM, and oral lichen planus. Stomatologia 1990;47:114-120.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Gandolfo S, Carrozzo M, Carbone M, Broccoletti R, Cascio G. Humoral immunological parameters in Italian patients with oral lichen planus. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol 1994;37:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Ghalayani P, Razavi SM, Gholami D. Comparative study of number and distribution of IgG+ cells in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009;6:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Van der Waal I. Oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions; A critical appraisal with emphasis on the diagnostic aspects. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14:310-4.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Wu-Wang CY, Patel M, Feng J, Milles M, Wang SL. Decreased levels of salivary prostaglandin E2 and epidermal growth factor in recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Arch Oral Biol 1995;40:1093-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Sano SM, Quarracino MC, Aguas SC, González EJ, Harada L, Krupitzki H, et al. Sensitivity of direct immunofluorescence in oral diseases. Study of 125 cases.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008;13:287-91.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Gombos F, Serpico R, Gaeta GM, Budetta F, De Luca P. The importance of direct immunofluorescence in the diagnosis of oral lichen planus. A clinical study and proposal of new diagnostic criteria.Minerva Stomatol 1992;41:363-72.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Laskaris G, Sklavounou A, Angelopoulos A. Direct immunofluorescence in oral lichen planus.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:483-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Biocina-Lukenda D, Cekiæ-Arambasin A, Markeljeviæ J, Bukoviæ D. Serum immunoglobulinsIgG, IgA and IgM in patients with oral lichen ruber.CollAntropol 2008;32:161-3.  Back to cited text no. 37
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1279    
    Printed65    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded322    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal