4.1 Article

Clinical characterization of women with burning mouth syndrome in a case-control study

Journal

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 76, Issue 4, Pages 279-286

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2017.1420226

Keywords

Burning mouth syndrome; case-control study; xerostomia; skin disease; oral parafunction

Funding

  1. TUA
  2. Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg/Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden
  3. Swedish Dental Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic orofacial pain disorder that is defined by a burning sensation in the oral mucosa. The aim of this study was to investigate the underlying factors, clinical characteristics and self-reported oral and general health factors associated with BMS. Material and methods: Fifty-six women with BMS (mean age: 67.7) and their age-matched controls were included in the study. A general questionnaire, an OHRQL index and BMS-specific questionnaires were used. Each subject underwent an oral examination. Results: The mean severity of the BMS symptoms (VAS, 0-100) was 66.2 (SD 19.7). Overall, 45% of the patients reported taste disturbances. More of the patients than the controls rated their general health, oral health and life situation as 'less satisfactory'. The patients also reported more frequently on-going medications, diseases/disorders, xerostomia, allergy and skin diseases. Except for more bruxofacets among the patients, there were no significant differences regarding signs of parafunction. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, xerostomia and skin diseases showed the strongest prediction for BMS and no significant effect was found for medication, allergy or bruxofacets. Conclusions: Skin diseases and xerostomia but not parafunction were strongly associated with BMS. Our findings provide the basis for additional studies to elucidate the causal factors of BMS.

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