   |
|
E-CORRESPONDENCE |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 58
| Issue : 2 | Page : 164 |
|
| Simple scoring system for oral pemphigus vulgaris |
|
|
Shamim Thorakkal
Department of Dentistry, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Nilambur, India
| Date of Web Publication | 5-Mar-2013 |
Correspondence Address:
Shamim Thorakkal
Department of Dentistry, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Nilambur
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.108115
|
|
How to cite this article:
Thorakkal S. Simple scoring system for oral pemphigus vulgaris. Indian J Dermatol 2013;58:164 |
Sir,
I read with great interest the article by Sanjiv Grover addressing various scoring systems in pemphigus. [1] I am a dental professional who have published 2 articles about clinico-pathologic study of oral pemphigus vulgaris in Kerala. [2],[3] I would like to mention certain additions to this CME article regarding the scoring criteria used to rate the extent of oral lesions in pemphigus vulgaris. In my context, the extent of oral lesion was rated using 3 grades as follows:
Grade I : Only 1 intraoral site is involved.
Grade II : 2 intraoral sites are involved.
Grade III : 3 or more intraoral sites are involved.
In my research in oral pemphigus vulgaris, it was found that about 38 cases (53.53%) were grade III followed by grade II (20 cases, 28.17%) and grade I (13 cases, 18.30%). [3] This scoring criteria is a simple and straightforward technique easily performed in dental clinic practice. I hope this simple scoring criteria to rate the extent of oral lesions in pemphigus vulgaris will be beneficial to both dermatologists and oral clinicians.
 References | |  |
| 1. | Grover S. Scoring systems in pemphigus. Indian J Dermatol 2011;56:145-9. 
[PUBMED]  |
| 2. | Shamim T, Varghese VI, Shameena PM, Sudha S. Oral pemphigus vulgaris: Clinicopathologic study of 20 cases. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2007;50:498-501.
[PUBMED] |
| 3. | Shamim T, Varghese VI, Shameena PM, Sudha S. Pemphigus vulgaris in oral cavity: Clinical analysis of 71 cases. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008;13:E622-6.
[PUBMED] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
