Cross-sectional study reveals optimal lighting and magnification for intraoral videodermoscopy in healthy adults, highlighting distinct benefits of polarized versus non-polarized imaging.
BACKGROUND: The early detection of malignant and potentially malignant lesions in the oral cavity remains a clinical priority. However, establishing baseline characteristics of normal intraoral mucosa is essential for improving diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This pilot observational study aimed to describe the dermato-mucosal features of three intraoral sites-mucocutaneous junction (MCJ), labial mucosa (LM), and anterior tongue mucosa (ATM)-using dermoscopy and fluorescence advanced videodermatoscopy (FAV), under physiological conditions. METHODS: Forty healthy Caucasian subjects were examined using videodermoscopy (VD) at 30x and 150x magnifications with both polarized and non-polarized light. Qualitative visibility of key anatomical structures (skin texture, vascular elements, salivary gland openings, papillae) was assessed on a standardized scale. Statistical analysis was performed to compare visibility scores between lighting conditions and magnification levels. RESULTS: Non-polarized light consistently enhanced the visualization of surface textures in all regions. Polarized light slightly improved the delineation of subepithelial vascular structures, particularly in MCJ and ATM, although statistical discrepancies were observed depending on the test used. Higher magnification significantly improved the detection of microstructures, especially glandular and vascular elements. CONCLUSION: This study establishes preliminary dermoscopic reference criteria for normal intraoral mucosa. The results suggest that non-polarized light is preferable for assessing surface features, while polarized light offers complementary insight into subepithelial architecture. These findings contribute to developing non-invasive diagnostic frameworks for intraoral pathologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camodeca et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: