Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by recurrent painful oral mucosal ulcers. Epithelial barrier-related alterations and oxidative stress have been proposed to be associated with its pathophysiology. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate serum Claudin-1 and Sestrin-2 levels in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and to assess their associations with clinical disease activity. Methods: This study was designed as an observational cross-sectional case-control study. Forty patients with active recurrent aphthous stomatitis and forty age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers were included in the study. Serum Claudin-1 and Sestrin-2 levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Intergroup comparisons, correlations, and receiver operating characteristics were performed. Results: Serum Claudin-1 levels were significantly lower in the patient group (p=0.005). Serum Sestrin-2 levels, however, did not differ statistically between the patient and control groups. Claudin-1 levels showed a moderate negative correlation with monthly ulcer attack frequency (rho =−0.32, p=0.044). In addition, serum Claudin-1 levels showed a strong positive correlation with serum Sestrin-2 levels (rho=0.74, p<0.001). Conclusions: Lower serum Claudin-1 levels and their inverse correlation with monthly ulcer frequency suggest an association between serum Claudin-1 and ulcer attack frequency in RAS. However, because of the observational cross-sectional design, it cannot be determined whether reduced Claudin-1 contributes to RAS development, results from active ulceration, or reflects concurrent inflammatory activity at the time of sampling. Because Claudin-1 and Sestrin-2 were measured only in serum, these findings do not demonstrate oral mucosal tight-junction disruption or epithelial barrier dysfunction. Given the small sample size, serum-only biomarker assessment, and only modest discriminatory performance in ROC analysis, the results should be interpreted as preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than diagnostically applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yılmaz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: