Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 1 Diagnostic Significance of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Mohammad Javad Rahimi1, Fariba Mirakhori2, Rebecca Zelmanovich3, Christina Sedaros4, Brandon Lucke-Wold5, Gersham Rainone6, Arshin Ghaedi7, Shokoufeh Khanzadeh8 1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 2 Zanjan University of Medical Science, Zanjan, Iran 3 University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA 4 University of Florida, Gainesville, USA 5 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA 6 Drexel University College of Medicine, USA 7 Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 8 Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran Key words: Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, inflammation, recurrent aphthous stomatitis, meta-analysis Citation: Rahimi MJ, Mirakhori F, Zelmanovich R, et al. Diagnostic Significance of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046. DOI: https://doi .org/10.5826/dpc.1401a46 Accepted: August 14, 2023; Published: January 2024 Copyright: ©2024 Rahimi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing Interests: None. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication. Corresponding Author: Shokoufeh Khanzadeh, Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. E-mail: Khshokufeh7@gmail.com Introduction: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a prevalent ulcerative condition affecting oral mucosa. Objectives: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the level of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) between individuals with RAS and those who are healthy. Methods: A systematic search for relevant publications before June 21, 2022, was conducted using Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. The results were presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a random-effects model was used to calculate pooled effects due to the presence of significant heterogeneity. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. ABSTRACT 2 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 Introduction Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a prevalent ulcer- ative condition affecting oral mucosa. It is characterized by painful, recurrent ulcerative lesions most commonly found on non-keratinized surfaces of the buccal mucosa, lips, tongue and floor of mouth [1]. They may be single or multi- ple in number and are described as well-demarcated, round or ovoid, and superficial [1]. RAS is estimated to affect ap- proximately 20% population, most often arising in the sec- ond decade of life [2,3]. It has important impacts on quality of life, causing significant pain and difficulties with speech and mastication [4,5]. There are three primary categories of RAS, including mi- nor RAS, major RAS and herpetiform RAS [1]. Minor RAS is the most common form, accounting for greater than 70% of cases and is considered the least severe presentation [1]. It is limited to the lips, tongue, and buccal mucosa; they are su- perficial, <10mm in diameter and resolve within two weeks. Major RAS is more severe, extending into the soft palate and pharynx, averaging >10mm and lasting up to six weeks [1]. Finally, herpetiform RAS consists of deeper ulcers, that are numerous in number, which will coalesce and resolve within 30 days [1]. Despite its wide prevalence, the pathophysiology of RAS remains elusive [3]. Histopathologically, the ul- cers of RAS patients are characterized by substantial cell-mediated inflammation, including infiltration of neutro- phils, monocytes, and T-cells [6,7]. Such evidence suggests an immunologic role in disease pathogenesis, specifically cell-mediated immunity. It is currently hypothesized that underlying genetic and immunologic factors may predispose an individual to RAS [3,8]. In the setting of triggers, such individual may develop a dysregulated immune response di- rected toward localized areas of the oral mucosa. Suggested triggers include mechanical injury, systemic disease, viral or bacterial infections, and food allergies - among others [3]. In this context, much research has attempted to char- acterize the immune response in these patients to better understand, treat and predict prognosis of disease. Several inflammatory markers and cells have been the subject of investigations thus far. Such studies reveal elevations of proinflammatory cytokines, Th1 responses and neutrophil hyperactivity [9-12]. More recently, researchers have also looked to evaluate neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) values in this patient population. NLR is an emerging marker of chronic inflammation which has demonstrated strong prog- nostic utility in a variety of inflammatory and chronic dis- ease states. NLR values have been shown to reflect severity of systemic inflammation and predict disease outcomes in a variety of malignancies, acute infections and chronic dis- eases [13]. It can be readily obtained from a standard hemo- gram and is of minimal cost to patient and provider. Objectives To date, studies evaluating NLR in RAS patients have sug- gested that such a measure is elevated in this patient co- hort; however, results are mixed and overall association remains inconclusive. As a result, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature is warranted. In this study, we aim to evaluate the current literature to clarify this important association. The results of this study can help to validate NLR as a marker of RAS, further elucidating disease pathogenesis and shaping clinical management. Methods The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines  [14]. Two independent investigators conducted the study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Literature Search The search was systematically conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until June 21, 2022, using specific terms adjusted accordingly for each database: ((“neutrophil”[All Fields] AND “lymphocyte”[All Fields] AND “ratio”[All Fields]) OR “Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Results: Overall, 13 article with were included in the analysis. NLR was higher among patients with RAS compared to healthy controls (SMD = 0.50, 95% CI = -0.20 to 0.79, P = 0.001, I2 = 91.5%). In the subgroup analysis based on the study design, it was found that retrospective studies showed higher levels of NLR in patients with RAS compared to healthy controls (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI= 0.16 to 1.08, P < 0.01), but these results were not applied to prospective studies (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.74, P < 0.07). Conclusion: Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio revealed crosstalk between systematic inflammation and RAS. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 3 ratio”[All Fields] OR “NLR”[All Fields]) AND (“recur- rent”[All Fields] ) AND ((“aphthous”[All Fields] AND “stomatitis”[All Fields]) OR “stomatitis, aphthous”[MeSH Terms]). To exclude irrelevant research to the greatest ex- tent possible, we required the specified keywords mentioned earlier to appear in the title or abstract. Additionally, we searched the references of the included studies to incorpo- rate as many relevant studies as possible. Any references that did not provide appropriate information were excluded. Our search was not limited by date or language. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria This meta-analysis included studies that met the following criteria: (1) a comparative design with a case group and a control group. The control group consisted of healthy indi- viduals matched to the case group, which included patients with RAS; (2) data on NLR levels in the study must be avail- able, including mean and standard deviation; (3) the test samples must be taken from blood. Studies were excluded if they met the following criteria: (1) duplicated a previous publication; (2) included other conditions that may affect NLR levels; (3) were animal experiments. Data Extraction and Conversion Two reviewers extracted data independently from all the studies that met the inclusion criteria. Basic information was extracted from each study, including publication year, the name of the first author, language, study design, RAS type, and NLR level. Quality Assessment and Study Stratification Numerous methods exist for evaluating observational stud- ies, but the most efficient one is the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS); hence, this scale was used to evaluate the included studies. NOS comprises of three components: selection, com- parability, and exposure, with each having eight entries. This is a semi-quantitative scale, and a score ranging from 0-9 stars is assigned to each study. Statistical Analysis To compare the two groups, Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the Chi- squared test, and P < 0.10 was considered significant. Quan- titative estimation of heterogeneity was based on I2, which ranged from 0% to 100%, where I2 = 0–25% indicated no or mild heterogeneity; I2 = 25–50% indicated moderate heterogeneity; I2 = 50–75% indicated large heterogeneity, and I2 = 75–100% indicated extreme heterogeneity. If I2 exceeded 50%, a random effects model was used, and if it was less than 50%, a fixed effect model was used. Given the significant heterogeneity among studies, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted based on the study design, and pub- lication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and an asym- metry test. The Egger test was used to identify the presence of publication bias by analyzing the value of p. STATA 12.0 was used for all analyses, and statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05, unless provided otherwise. Certainty of Evidence We utilized the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) technique to eval- uate the certainty of the evidence for the outcome that was studied in our review [15]. Results Search Results and Included Studies After conducting a database search and a manual search of the article citation list, we identified a total of 210 results. Eventually, we included 13 papers [16-28] in our systematic review and meta-analysis, after eliminating duplicates and irrelevant records. The detailed process of inclusion and ex- clusion is presented in Figure 1, which shows the PRISMA flow diagram. Characteristics of the Population and Quality Assessment In total, 13 articles, including 1239 patients with RAS and 1167 healthy controls, were included in the analysis [16-28]. Eleven of them were written in English [16,17,19-27], one in Arabic [28] and one in Turkish [18]. There were seven retro- spective studies [16-18,21,25-27] and six prospective studies [19,20,22-24,28]. All of them were conducted in Turkey ex- cept for one study which was conducted in Syria [28]. Table 1 shows the overall characteristics of the included articles. The quality assessment revealed that all the studies were of mod- erate to high quality based on the NOS scale (Table 1). Differences in NLR Level Between Patients With RAS and Healthy Controls A random-effect model revealed that NLR was higher among patients with RAS compared to healthy controls (Figure 2). However, the GRADE approach determined that the certainty of this summary estimate of effect was very low (Table 2). Our subgroup analysis, based on study design, revealed that patients with RAS had a higher NLR compared to healthy controls in retrospective studies, but not in prospec- tive studies, as shown in Figure 2. In our second subgroup analysis, based on the NOS score, we found that studies with 4 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 Our fourth subgroup analysis, based on sample size, showed that studies with a large sample size found higher NLR among patients with RAS in comparison to healthy controls, while studies with a small sample size did not show a significant difference, as illustrated in Figure 5. Lastly, in the final subgroup analysis based on article language, we observed that NLR was higher among patients with RAS a score of seven had higher NLR among patients with RAS compared to healthy controls, but studies with a score of six or eight did not show such a difference, as depicted in Figure 3. Then, we analyzed the data of studies with minor RAS and mixed RAS, separately. The difference was not signifi- cant in either subgroup (Figure 4). Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which includes searches of databases, registers and other sources. Table 1. General characteristics of included studies. First author Year Country Design Timing of exposure- outcome measurement Language Type of RAS RAS group Healthy controls NOS scoreN NLR N NLR Ozler23 2014 Turkey Prospective Simultaneously English ND 35 2.05±0.63 35 1.34±0.48 7 Sereflican24 2016 Turkey Prospective Simultaneously English ND 39 2.12±0.65 34 2.26±1.02 7 Terzi25 2016 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously English ND 80 3.37±1.74 80 1.95±1.21 6 Kara18 2017 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously Turkish ND 306 1.88±1.00 300 1.83±0.73 8 Kule22 2018 Turkey Prospective Simultaneously English minor 143 2.25±1.07 134 1.85±0.64 8 Amoun28 2019 Syria Prospective Simultaneously Arabic ND 40 2.18±0.66 40 1.80±0.42 7 Kayabasi21 2019 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously English ND 72 2.60±0.48 60 1.80±0.43 7 Uluyol27 2019 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously English Minor or major 61 2.61±1.57 40 2.70±0.96 6 Avci17 2020 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously English Minor or major 51 1.94±0.74 51 1.80±0.80 7 Karaer19 2020 Turkey Prospective Simultaneously English Minor 137 1.90±0.82 137 1.63±0.67 8 Ozden20 2021 Turkey Prospective Simultaneously English Minor, major, or herpetiform 81 1.95±1.03 69 2.38±1.27 8 Turan26 2021 Turkey Retrospective Simultaneously English ND 97 1.96±0.73 90 1.71±0.65 7 Atalay16 2022 Turkey Retrospective simultaneously English ND 97 2.66±1.10 97 1.70±0.49 7 ND = not declared; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; NOS = Newcastle-Ottawa scale; RAS = recurrent aphthous stomatitis;. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 5 Figure 2. Meta-analysis of differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio level between patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and healthy controls. Table 2. GRADE Evidence Profile for Studies on the Role of lymphocyte ratio level in recurrent aphthous stomatitis. No of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirect- ness Impre- cision Publi- cation bias Partici- pants, N Cases, N 13 observational studies not serious very serious not serious not serious very serious 2406 1239 ⊕○○○ Very low CRITI- CAL compared to healthy controls in studies published in English, but not in studies published in other languages, as indicated in Figure 6. Publication Bias As depicted in Figure 7, our analysis did not reveal any sig- nificant publication bias among the studies that were in- cluded (with an Egger test P-value of 0.37 and a Begg test P-value of 0.58). Conclusions The NLR, a measure of the ratio between neutrophils and lymphocytes, is a marker for inflammation and stress that provides insight into the interplay between the innate and adaptive immune responses. Neutrophils are primary com- ponents of the innate immune system which forms the ba- sis of pro-inflammatory processes [29] and lymphocytes are central to the adaptive immune system, serving a predom- inantly regulatory function [30]. The NLR thus provides insight into the balance between the innate and adaptive im- mune system. Higher NLR values are thought to indicate a more severe inflammatory state and suggest worse prognosis in a variety of pathologic states, including those related to in- flammation, injury, surgery, and cancer [13]. Applying these concepts to recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), the NLR may suggest that there is a subclinical inflammatory process present in these patients. 6 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 Figure 3. Subgroup analysis of the differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio level between patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and healthy controls, according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. Figure 4. Subgroup analysis of the differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio level between patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and healthy controls, according to the type of RAS. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 7 Figure 5. Subgroup analysis of the differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio level between patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and healthy controls, according to sample size. Figure 6. Subgroup analysis of the differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio level between patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and healthy controls, according to the article language. 8 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 portend diagnostic significance, as well as further elucidate pathophysiology of disease. These findings contribute posi- tively to the literature in that they help to discern the immu- nologic elements at play for patients with RAS, and taking into account the diseases relationship to other systemic inflammatory diseases, it may play a role in further delin- eating pathologic immune mechanisms of some devastating disease states previously referenced. Furthermore, our results indicate that there may be a relative neutrophilia present in patients with RAS compared to controls, allowing for us to pinpoint further disturbances in the immunologic mecha- nism of this disease process. With further investigation, this could present numerous applications in the future from a multitude of standpoints including genetics, immunology, pharmacology, cellular and molecular biology, etc. Nonetheless, it is important to note that additional fac- tors may be contributing to our findings. An example of this would be the known association between psychologi- cal stressors and RAS [33-35]. RAS patients who experience anxiety exhibit increased mean salivary cortisol levels [36]. Elevated cortisol leads to both neutrophilia and lymphope- nia and may artificially elevate NLR values found in these patients. Ultimately, such immunologic perturbations may precipitate RAS flares [37,38]. Another example of factors contributing to our findings could be the presence of other inflammatory diseases in patients with RAS. There have been numerous studies and reports of comorbid systemic inflam- matory diseases in patients with RAS and such inflammatory conditions may inherently produce elevated or altered NLR values. With a sample size of more than 1200 patients, this could present a variable influencing our results, especially given that patients who have evidence of RAS have a higher Although the etiology of RAS is not fully elucidated in the literature, immunologic mechanisms are thought to play a central role in its pathologic cascade, making the NLR a useful tool in helping to understand and decipher the role of different immunologic elements in the disease process [3,31]. Strong evidence for immunologic underpinnings of the dis- ease is based on histopathologic findings showing that aphthous ulcers of RAS patients are characterized by cell-mediated inflammation, largely neutrophilic, monocytic and T cell infiltration [6,7]. The neutrophilic cells in RAS patients have been shown to have increased production of reactive oxidative species, demonstrating a dysregulated im- mune response in these patients. This is further supported by the association of RAS with systemic inflammatory dis- eases such as inflammatory bowel disease, HIV and Behçet disease. Systemically, RAS patients exhibit a heightened pro-inflammatory state, with elevations in cytokines and al- tered leukocyte activities – for example, reduced activity of regulatory and anti-inflammatory mediators [32]. Keeping in mind these major principles from the litera- ture, our study evaluated the diagnostic utility of NLR by measuring the difference in NLR values between those who were diagnosed with RAS versus those who were not. Our study included a total of 1239 patients with RAS and 1167 healthy controls across a total of 13 studies. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate a higher NLR in patients with RAS as compared to those without RAS, indicated by a SMD of 0.50. The SMD of 0.50 is a standardized measure of the mean difference of NLR values between individuals with RAS as compared to those without and equates to a mod- erate effect size. Altogether, our results suggest that patients with RAS have elevated NLR values and such findings may Figure 7. Funnel plot assessing publication bias. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 9 search process ensuring thorough review of the literature. Furthermore, based on the Begg and Egger test, assessment of publication bias showed no significant bias, further strengthening validity of our results. However, our results yielded significant heterogeneity for the overall pooled re- sults with an overall I2 value of 91.5%, thus limiting gener- alizability of our findings. We speculated that study design could be contributing to heterogeneity and to further ex- plore this, subgroup analysis was completed. However, such stratification did not appear to explain heterogeneity. Thus, we speculated additional factors contributing to heteroge- neity may include variations in RAS diagnosis, study pop- ulations, and geographic location of studies. For example, baseline NLR values appear to vary by geographic location and race [13,40]. Such variations may suggest inherent dif- ferences in the degree to which NLR responds to pathologic insults among different populations and could introduce fur- ther heterogeneity. Moreover, on subgroup analysis by study design, there was a loss of effect size for prospective studies. The reason for this is not clear and should be investigated further. In particular, retrospective studies are subject to a greater risk of bias, and it is unclear if the retained effect size in ret- rospective studies is a result of such. Therefore, additional prospective studies, perhaps with standardized protocols, will be needed to better characterize the associations of NLR values with RAS, and to clarify prognostic utility. In addition, the protocol of our systematic review had not been pre-registered (eg in PROSPERO). This is a concern as it introduces potential bias to the review and does not align with Cochrane guidance. Finally, the sample size (N = 13) for our study is relatively small and may further limit greater generalization of results. As additional studies are published on the matter, future meta-analysis with greater sample sizes and power will be useful to confirm the findings of our study. RAS is a highly prevalent disorder with a poorly under- stood pathogenesis, an imprecise method of treatment, and a measurable impact on patient quality of life. Despite unclear etiology, much research has supported a role of immune dysregulation in disease pathogenesis. In this systematic re- view and meta-analysis, we found NLR values to be signifi- cantly greater in patients with RAS as compared to those without, further supporting an immunologic mechanism of disease. In addition, our results suggest diagnostic utility of NLR values in RAS patients. Further, reports of correlations between elevated NLR values and disease activity support potential prognostic utility of NLR. However, due to small sample size and lack of effect size when stratifying by study design, further prospective studies will be needed to clarify associations found in this study and to further explore prog- nostic utility. Nonetheless, based on the results of our study, NLR is a practical marker of inflammation which shows an incidence of inflammatory diseases. Other factors that could be influencing our results include laboratory error, inade- quate samples, and inconsistencies amongst the included studies, as will be discussed in our limitations. There is a plethora of factors within each of the individual studies that could be contributing to our overall result, and the limita- tions of each study are not to be ignored when considering the utility of our results. Future studies that control for the presence of stress and anxiety when evaluating NLR values in RAS patients, and studies that focus on eliminating other confounding variables are necessary for gaining a better understanding of our results in the setting of RAS. Finally, across the studies in our meta-analysis, hematologic values and RAS diagnosis were obtained simultaneously. Thus, we cannot delineate cause and effect but, rather, can only state the presence of a correlation between the presence of RAS and elevated NLR values. As such, we cannot determine if elevated NLR values precipitate disease or, alternatively, are an end-result of the disease process. Future studies evaluat- ing NLR values before and after RAS flares could help to answer this important question. Another important implication of our findings lies in the diagnostic significance of our results. Currently, the diagno- sis of RAS is largely clinical without an objective quantita- tive measure. A quantitative diagnostic value, as an adjunct to clinical presentation, may enable more efficient diagnosis of new and recurrent disease. Further, and perhaps of greater significance, NLR values may also serve to characterize dis- ease severity in these patients to ultimately guide therapeutic management. To explain, currently, treatment of RAS in- volves a stepwise approach, with choice of anti-inflammatory agents escalated based on symptom severity and therapeutic response. However, many commonly used agents are not ef- fective for all patients and targeted treatment remains a chal- lenge. In this context, two prior studies have found that NLR measurements correlate with disease severity. Thus, NLR val- ues may help to define severity of disease to guide selection of more appropriate anti-inflammatory agents while early in disease course. However, there remains inconsistencies in the literature in regard to NLR correlation with RAS severity. For example, a study by Kayabasi and colleagues found no significant differences in NLR values among RAS patients with active and inactive disease, suggesting absence of cor- relation with disease severity [39]. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify this important correlation in order to more confidently determine the role of NLR in guiding treat- ment decisions. Nonetheless, the potential diagnostic signifi- cance of NLR values remains. In summary, NLR is a readily available and affordable hematologic value that may serve as an objective adjunctive tool to better diagnose disease. Our study has both strengths and limitations. Fore- most, this meta-analysis was conducted using a methodical 10 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. PMID: 33789826. 15. Group GW. Grading of recommendations assessment, develop- ment and evaluation (GRADE). 2012. 16. Atalay F, Kars A, Topal K, Yavuz Z. Systemic immune inflam- mation index in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;88(4):621-624. DOI: 10.1016/j .bjorl.2022.02.007. PMID: 35654715. PMCID: PMC9422371. 17. Avcı D. Use of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width, Platelet Dis- tribution Width, and Mean Platelet Volume Values as Diagnostic Markers in Patients with Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020;5(2):139-144. 18. Kara SP, Avcı O, Albayrak H, et al. REKÜRREN AFTÖZ STOMA- TİT TANILI HASTALARDA NÖTROFİL/LENFOSİT ORANI BİR AKUT FAZ REAKTANI OLARAK KULLANILABİLİR Mİ? Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi (International Journal of Basic and Clinical Medicine). 2017. 19. Karaer IC. Mean platelet volume, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as İnflammatory markers in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Eurasian J Med. 2020;52(1):38-40. DOI: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2019.18486. PMID: 32158312. PMCID: PMC7051240. 20. Kaya Ozden H, Akpinar Kara Y. Assessment of Serum Vitamin Levels, Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio, and Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis. SN Com- prehensive Clinical Medicine. 2021;3(2):606-610. DOI: 10.1007 /s42399-021-00783-w 21. Kayabasi S, Hizli O, Cayir S. A novel predictor parameter for ac- tive recurrent aphthous stomatitis: C-reactive protein to albumin ratio. Cureus. 2019;11(10):e5965. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5965. PMID: 31803551. PMCID: PMC6874286. 22. Kule M, Polat AK, Belli AA, Kule ZG. Neutrophil to lymphocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratios as an indicator of inflammation in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis. ENT Updates. 2018;8:41-44 DOI: 10.2399/jmu.2018001004. 23. Özler GS, Akoğlu E. The Relationship Between Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis Nötrofil Lenfosit Oranı ile Reküren Aftöz Stomatit Arasındaki İlişki. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi. 2017;5(2):83-87. 24. Şereflican M, Şereflican B, Tuman B, Göksügür N, Kesgin S, Yurttaş V. Evaluation of mean platelet volume and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a diagnostic indicator in patients with re- current aphthous stomatitis. ENT updates. 2016;6:82-86. DOI: 10.2399/jmu.2016002008 25. Terzi S, Dursun E, Özgür A, et al. Status of neutrophils, lympho- cytes and platelets in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a retrospective study. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;28(89): 421-424. PMID: 28008393. PMCID: PMC5168574. 26. Turan Ç, Metin N, Utlu Z, Tezcan D. Mean platelet volume as a predictor in the differentiation of Behçet’s disease from recurrent aphthous stomatitis–A single centre, prospective, case‐control study. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(11):e14866. DOI: 10.1111 /ijcp.14866. PMID: 34519145. 27. Uluyol S, Kilicaslan S. Diagnostic Value of Neutrophil– Lymphocyte Ratios and Mean Platelet Volumes in the Activation of Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(1):120-123. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-017 -1059-8. PMID: 30906727. PMCID: PMC6401059. association with RAS and holds potential to further eluci- date pathophysiology and guide clinical management in these patients. References 1. Edgar NR, Saleh D, Miller RA. Recurrent Aphthous Stomati- tis: A Review. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. Mar 2017;10(3):26-36. E PMID: 28360966. PMCID: PMC5367879. 2. Deepak S, Sharma D. A Comprehensive Review on Aphthous Stomatitis, its Types, Management and Treatment Available. S J Develop Drugs 2018, 7:2 3. Slebioda Z, Szponar E, Kowalska A. Etiopathogenesis of recurrent aphthous stomatitis and the role of immunologic aspects: literature review. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2014;62(3):205-215. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-013-0261-y. PMID: 24217985. PMCID: PMC4024130. 4. Gasmi Benahmed A, Noor S, Menzel A, Gasmi A. Oral Aph- thous: Pathophysiology, Clinical Aspects and Medical Treat- ment. Arch Razi Inst. 2021;76(5):1155-1163. DOI:10.22092 /ari.2021.356055.1767. PMID: 35355774. PMCID: PMC8934078. 5. Al-Omiri MK, Karasneh J, Alhijawi MM, Zwiri AM, Scully C, Lynch E. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS): a preliminary within-subject study of quality of life, oral health impacts and personality profiles. J Oral Pathol Med. 2015;44(4):278-283. DOI:10.1111/jop.12232 Al PMID: 25154862. 6. Khan N, Saeed M, Baloch M-u-R, et al. Percentage of inflamma- tory cells in Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis in Dental Out Patient Department, Sheikh Zayed Federal Postgraduate Medical Insti- tute, Lahore. Med Forum. 2009;20:21-25. 7. Mills MP, Mackler BF, Cade Nelms D, Peavy DL. Quantitative Distribution of Inflammatory Cells in Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis. J Dent Res. 1980;59(3):562-566. DOI: 10.1177 /00220345800590030101. PMID: 6937488. 8. Rivera C, Muñoz A, Puentes C, Aguayo E. Risk Factors for Re- current Aphthous Stomatitis: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Morphology. 2021;39:1102-1108. DOI:10.4067 /S0717-95022021000401102. 9. Lewkowicz N, Lewkowicz P, Kurnatowska A, et al. Innate im- mune system is implicated in recurrent aphthous ulcer pathogene- sis. J Oral Pathol Med.2003;32(8):475-481. DOI:10.1034/j.1600 -0714.2003.00181.x. PMID: 12901729. 10. Lewkowicz N, Banasik M, Tchórzewski H, Kurnatowska A, Lewkowicz P. Predominance of production of Th1 type cy- tokines in recurrent aphthous ulceration. Dent Med Probl. 2004;42:655-660. 11. Natah SS, Häyrinen-Immonen R, Hietanen J, Malmström  M, Konttinen YT. Immunolocalization of tumor necrosis factor- alpha expressing cells in recurrent aphthous ulcer lesions (RAU). J Oral Pathol Med. 2000;29(1):19-25. DOI:10.1034/j.1600 -0714.2000.290104.x. PMID: 10678712. 12. Yamamoto T, Yoneda K, Ueta E, Osaki T. Serum cytokines, interleukin-2 receptor, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 in oral disorders. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;78(6):727-735. DOI:10.1016/0030-4220(94)90087-6. PMID: 7898909. 13. Zahorec R. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, past, present and future perspectives. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2021;122(7):474-488. DOI:10.4149/bll_2021_078 Z PMID: 34161115. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2024;14(1):e2024046 11 35. Gallo CdB, Mimura MAM, Sugaya NN. Psychological stress and recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64(7):645-648. DOI:10.1590/S1807-59322009000700007 G PMID: 19606240. PMCID: PMC2710437. 36. Kunikullaya UK, Kumar MA, Ananthakrishnan V, Jaisri G. Stress as a Cause of Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis and Its Correlation with Salivary Stress Markers. Chin J Physiol. 2017;60(4):226-230. DOI:10.4077/cjp.2017.Baf462. PMID: 28847142. 37. Ramaekers LH, Theunissen PM, Went K. Acute lymphopenia, stress, and plasma cortisol. Arch Dis Child. 1975;50(7):555-558. DOI:10.1136/adc.50.7.555. PMID: 1167069. PMCID: PMC1544608. 38. Ronchetti S, Ricci E, Migliorati G, Gentili M, Riccardi C. How Glucocorticoids Affect the Neutrophil Life. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(12):4090. DOI:10.3390/ijms19124090. PMID: 30563002. PMCID: PMC6321245. 39. Kayabasi S, Hizli O, Cayir S. A Novel Predictor Parameter for Active Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: C-Reactive Protein to Al- bumin Ratio. Cureus. Oct 22 2019;11(10):e5965. DOI:10.7759 /cureus.5965. PMID: 31803551. PMCID: PMC6874286. 40. Azab B, Camacho-Rivera M, Taioli E. Average values and racial differences of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio among a na- tionally representative sample of United States subjects. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112361-e112361. DOI:10.1371/journal .pone.0112361. PMID: 25375150. PMCID: PMC4223021. تايوافمللاو تالدعلا نم لكل يريرسلا مييقتلا .ا ليعامسا ,ع نومأ .28 باهتلا ىضرم دنع ةيصيخشت ةمالعك ةيومدلا تاحيفصلاو Tishreen University Journal-Medical .سكانلا يعالقلا مفلا Sciences Series. 2019;41(3). Print ISSN: 2079-309X , Online ISSN:2663-4287 29. Ley K, Hoffman HM, Kubes P, et al. Neutrophils: New insights and open questions. Sci Immunol. 2018;3(30):eaat4579. DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aat4579. PMID: 30530726. 30. Bonilla FA, Oettgen HC. Adaptive immunity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 010;125(2 Suppl 2):S33-S40. DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2009 .09.017 PMID: 20061006. 31. Akintoye SO, Greenberg MS. Recurrent aphthous stomati- tis. Dent Clin North Am. 2014;58(2):281-297. DOI:10.1016/j .cden.2013.12.002. PMID: 24655523. PMCID: PMC3964366. 32. Lewkowicz N, Lewkowicz P, Banasik M, Kurnatowska A, Tchórzewski H. Predominance of Type 1 cytokines and decreased number of CD4(+)CD25(+high) T regulatory cells in peripheral blood of patients with recurrent aphthous ulcerations. Immu- nol Lett. 2005;99(1):57-62. DOI:10.1016/j.imlet.2005.01.002 PMID: 15894112. 33. Keenan AV, Spivakovksy S. Stress associated with onset of recur- rent aphthous stomatitis. Evid Based Dent. 2013;14(1):25. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400919. PMID: 23579306. 34. Huling LB, Baccaglini L, Choquette L, Feinn RS, Lalla RV. Effect of stressful life events on the onset and duration of recurrent aphthous stomatitis. J Oral Pathol Med. 2012;41(2):149-152. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2011.01102.x. PMID: 22077475. PMCID: PMC3323121.