4.1 Article

Clinical Assessment of Orofacial Manifestations in 500 Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 71, Issue 2, Pages 290-294

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.05.008

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to determine the incidence of orofacial manifestations in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and to assess the factors associated with these symptoms. The dental implications of this disease are discussed. Patients and Methods: The study included 500 patients 11 to 69 years old with MS. All patients underwent a standard neurologic examination. The main manifestations assessed by the investigators were trigeminal neuralgia, facial palsy, temporomandibular disorders, visual complications, dysphagia, and dysarthria. The authors collected demographic information and clinical variables, such as disease duration and family history, to assess the factors associated with orofacial symptoms in patients with MS. Results: The frequency of orofacial manifestations in patients with MS was 88.6%. Visual disorders (80.4%) were observed most frequently in patients with MS, followed by temporomandibular disorders (58.2%), dysarthria (42.1%), dysphagia (26.6%), facial palsy (19%), and trigeminal neuralgia (7.9%). A significant correlation with orofacial manifestations was found in patients with a longer duration of disease (>7 yr) compared with patients with a shorter duration (<7 yr; P<.005). Conclusions: Among the different manifestations, visual complications, temporomandibular disorders, and dysarthria were commonly observed in patients with MS. Dental practitioners should be aware of the medications used by patients with MS to provide conservative treatments and avoid drug interactions. (C) 2013 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71: 290-294, 2013

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available