4.0 Article

Topical Clonazepam Solution for the Management of Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Retrospective Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL & FACIAL PAIN AND HEADACHE
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 257-263

Publisher

QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC
DOI: 10.11607/ofph.1754

Keywords

BMS; compounded rinse; oral burning; oral dysesthesia; topical treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two concentrations of topical clonazepam solution in improving symptoms of burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with BMS and managed with topical clonazepam solution between 2008 and 2015. A 0.5-mg/mL solution was prescribed until 2012, when this was changed to a 0.1 mg/mL solution. Patients were instructed to swish with 5 mL for 5 minutes and spit two to four times daily. The efficacies of the two concentrations were compared using patient-reported outcome measures at the first follow-up, including the reported percentage of improvement in burning symptoms and the change in burning severity from baseline ranked on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Response to treatment was compared between the two concentrations using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: A total of 57 subjects were included, 32 in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 25 in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort, and evaluated at a median follow-up of 7 weeks. The median overall percentage improvement was 32.5% in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 75% in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort. The median reduction in NRS score was 0.5 points in the 0.1-mg/mL cohort and 6 points in the 0.5-mg/mL cohort. The use of either outcome measure revealed that the response to treatment with the 0.5-mg/mL solution was superior to that of the 0.1 mg/mL solution (P < .01). Conclusion: These findings suggest that a 0.5-mg/mL topical clonazepam solution is effective in the management of BMS. Future randomized clinical trials are warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available