4.5 Article

Association of somatosensory dysfunction with symptom duration in burning mouth syndrome

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 3471-3477

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2765-7

关键词

Burning mouth syndrome; Quantitative sensory testing; German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain

资金

  1. Sato and Uemura funds, Dental Research Center from the Nihon University School of Dentistry
  2. Nihon University Multidisciplinary Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives A standardized battery of quantitative sensory tests developed by the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) was used to assess the association between somatosensory dysfunction and disease duration in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Materials and methods The 28 female participants with BMS were classified according to disease duration: <= 6 months (subchronic BMS, n = 15) and > 6 months (chronic BMS, n = 13); 29 age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers (control group) were recruited from staff of a dental hospital. The DFNS quantitative sensory testing protocol was applied at the ulnar surface of the right forearm and the tip of the tongue. Values for BMS patients and controls were compared and analyzed. Results The mechanical detection threshold (MDT) was significantly higher (i.e., loss of sensation) at the tongue tip in the chronic BMS group than in the control group (p = 0.011), whereas mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) at the forearm was significantly higher (i.e., gain of sensation) in the chronic BMS group than in the control group (Z score = - 2.13 and 1.99, respectively). Multivariate analyses revealed that BMS patients could be discriminated from controls by using pressure pain threshold at the tongue (79.3%) (in the subchronic BMS group) and by MDT and MPS at the tongue tip and MPS at the forearm (96.6 and 89.7%, respectively) (in the chronic BMS group). Conclusions In BMS patients with long disease duration, MDT showed loss of sensation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据