| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2018 | Volume
: 30
| Issue : 3 | Page : 235-240 |
|
|
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of topical amlexanox 5% oral paste and triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% oral paste in the treatment of Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis (RAS)
K Shrivastava, G Naidu, A Deshpande, H Handa, V Raghuvanshi, M Gupta
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Rishi Raj College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. K Shrivastava
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Rishi Raj College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal - 462 026, Madhya Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_40_18
|
|
|
Background: A double-blind randomized control trial was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% and amlexanox 5% in recurrent apthous stomatitis (minor). Materials and Methods: Forty adult patients were assessed for erythema, ulcer size, pain scores, and ulcer healing on three evaluation visits within 24 h of ulcer formation, third day, and fifth day. All participants were monitored for compliance with treatment protocols of four times daily application of calibrated quantity of medication. Results and Discussion: Ninety percent of controls when compared with 65% of the participants in the amlexanox group showed complete improvement of peri-ulcer erythema. Pain reduction was marked from the first to the fifth day (F = 15.249, P = 0.000). The control participants showed 90% reduction in pain in comparison to 70% in the amlexanox group. The mean ulcer size was shown to reduce from the first to fifth day in both groups (F = 18.611, P = 0.000). Completely healed ulcers were seen in 70% of the participants in the control group compared with 75% of the participants in the amlexanox group. Conclusion: The data suggest that the clinical efficacy of topical amlexanox 5% is comparable to topical 0.1% triamcinolone acetonide and may be considered a substitute except in pain control, which was marginally less for the treatment for recurrent apthous stomatitis (minor).
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
