Aim: The current study will attempt to throw light on the role of desmoglein 1 and desmoglein 3 in the pathogenesis of erosive lichen planus and their response to topical application of tacrolimus.

Materials and methods: Twenty patients with erosive oral lichen planus received tacrolimus ointment three times daily for eight weeks. Assessments using the clinical score and a visual analog scale were recorded at each visit. Serum concentrations of circulating autoantibodies to desmoglein 1 and desmoglein 3 will be determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) at baseline, four weeks and eight weeks after treatment. Statistical software SPSS v.17.0 was used for statistical analysis.

Results: All patients showed significant improvement in all outcomes within the follow-up periods when compared with the baseline (p < 0.05). The mean value of the visual analog scale were 8.30 ± 1.49, 4.15 ± 1.14, 2.10 ± 0.91, 0.90 ± 0.79, and 0.0 ± 0.0 starting from baseline to the end of follow up period. The mean value of the clinical score were 4.7 ± 0.48, 2.9 ± 1.29, 1.8 ± 1.32, 1.31 ± 0.69, and 0.69 ± 0.09 starting from baseline to the end of follow-up period. There was a significant decrease in the levels of anti-Dsg1 and anti-Dsg3, during the follow-up period (p ≥ 0.05).

Conclusion: The concluded data suggest that antibodies against desmoglein 1 and desmoglein 3 seem to play a key role in the pathogenesis of oral lichen planus. Also, there is a significant decrease in the level of anti-Dsg1 and anti-Dsg3 autoantibodies with topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment.

Clinical significance: Monitoring the serum level of antibodies against keratinocyte cadherins Dsg 1 and Dsg 3 can be used to evaluate the effect of topical application of tacrolimus on Erosive Oral lichen planus.

Keywords: anti-Dsg1; anti-Dsg3, Oral erosive lichen planus; Topical tacrolimus.

How to cite this article: Saad I, Salem S. Evaluation of Serum Desmoglein 1 and Desmoglein 3 in Oral Erosive Lichen Planus before and after Topical Application of Tacrolimus. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, October 2018;19(10):1204-1213.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None