Pablo Ramos‐García

Recent new terminologies have been proposed for lesions in the sphere of oral lichen planus (OLP) that theoretically present unique aetiological, clinical, prognostic or management characteristics different from those of the so‐called typical forms of OLP. We aimed to critically analyse what concepts and terminologies related to OLP should we accept based on the available evidence. A review of the literature was carried out in order to critically analyse the concepts and terminologies related to OLP. New concepts and terminologies include oral lichenoid lesions; contact lichenoid reactions, drug lichenoid reactions or those in the context of graft‐versus‐host disease; chronic ulcerative stomatitis; lichen planus pemphigoid; and some lesions that are difficult to categorise, such as OLP with features of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia and lichenoid lesions of the upper labial mucosa. A multidisciplinary, multicontinent working group has recently published a guideline with recommendations for modifying definitions and terminologies associated with a disease, among which a reasoned, evidence‐based justification for the proposed change is considered essential. An in‐depth analysis of the newly proposed terms for OLP‐related lesions shows that many of them are not justified. In this paper, we set out our position on the basis of the existing evidence on the appropriateness of the use of these new terms.