{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050668543279380716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023926812104152005, 'mean_word_length': 4.780487804878049, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical characteristics of lichen and dysplasia vs lichen planus cases and dysplasia cases.

OBJECTIVES
To compare the clinical characteristics of lichen planus with dysplasia (LD) cases with oral dysplasia (DYS), and LP/lichenoid reaction (LP/LR).


METHODS
Patients treated at the Department of Oral Medicine with a histological diagnosis were included. Patient information (age, gender, ethnicity, smoking habits, and medical status) and parameters of oral manifestation (lesions' distribution, site, and type) were compared.


RESULTS
Two hundred and thirty five patients were included. 54% were never smokers and 25% were current smokers. The LD group (n = 79) had more bilateral cases when compared to the DYS group (n = 30), 70% to 40.7%, respectively (P = 0.008), and a lower average age [56-62, respectively (P = 0.043)]. All other parameters were similar. When compared to LR patients, the LD group had a higher percentage of men [41.8-27.9%, respectively (P = 0.08)] while all other parameters were similar.


CONCLUSIONS
As clinical characteristics of LD are more similar to the LP and LR group than to dysplasia, these findings may indicate that LD should be considered as part of the lichen planus disorder spectrum rather than a separate entity, although further analysis of larger groups is warranted. These results support the need for clinical follow-up among patients diagnosed with lichenoid changes.