No abstract

Patients suffering from persistent pain after endodontic treatment have less efficient pain modulation system compared with healthy controls.

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain condition. It has been described by the International Headache Society as “an intra-oral burning or dysesthetic sensation, recurring daily for more than 2 h/day for more than 3 months, without clinically evident causative lesions.” BMS is frequently seen in women in the peri-menopausal and menopausal age group in an average female/male ratio of 7:1. The site most commonly affected is the anterior two-thirds of the tongue. The patient may also report taste alterations and oral dryness along with the burning. The etiopathogenesis is complex and is not well-comprehended. The more accepted theories point toward a neuropathic etiology, but the gustatory system has also been implicated in this condition. BMS is frequently mismanaged, partly because it is not well-known among healthcare providers. Diagnosis of BMS is made after other local and systemic causes of burning have been ruled out as then; the oral burning is the disease itself. The management of BMS still remains a challenge. Benzodiazepines have been used in clinical practice as the first-line medication in the pharmacological management of BMS. Nonpharmacological management includes cognitive behavioral therapy and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this review is to familiarize healthcare providers with the diagnosis, pathogenesis, and general characteristics of primary BMS while updating them with the current treatment options to better manage this group of patients.

Objective To conduct a systematic review analyzing disease definitions and diagnostic criteria used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Methods A systematic search conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database/Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar that included RCTs on BMS published between 1994 and 2017 was performed. Results Considerable variability in BMS disease definitions and diagnostic criteria used created substantial heterogeneity in the selection of participants and weakened the rigor of the 36 RCTs identified. The analyzed RCTs routinely under‐reported the methods used to rule in or out study participants and the number of individuals excluded from BMS RCTs. Conclusions Our findings indicate that a large proportion of participants enrolled in these studies may have had an underlying condition that could have explained their BMS symptoms. Thus, outcomes of therapeutic interventions from these BMS RCTs should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneous disease definitions and diagnostic criteria. In order to improve the quality of clinical trials, future research should focus on establishing consensus for a single definition of BMS that includes specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that should be used to select study participants for clinical trials.

The DVM method provides a simple, cost effective, and reproducible method for studying periodontal disease in rodents.

No abstract

Objective To develop a beta version of a preliminary set of empirically derived research diagnostic criteria (RDC) for burning mouth syndrome (BMS) through expert consensus, which can then be taken into a test period before publication of a final RDC/BMS. Design A 6 round Delphi process with twelve experts in the field of BMS was used. The first round formed a focus group during which the purpose of the RDC and the definition of BMS was agreed upon, as well as the structure and contents. The remaining rounds were carried out virtually via email to achieve a consensus of the beta version of the RDC/BMS. Results The definition of BMS was agreed to be ‘an intraoral burning or dysaesthetic sensation, recurring daily for more than 2 hours per day over more than 3 months, without evident causative lesions on clinical examination and investigation’. The RDC was based upon the already developed and validated RDC/TMD and formed three main parts: patient self‐report; examination; and psychosocial self‐report. A fourth additional part was also developed listing aspirational biomarkers which could be used as part of the BMS diagnosis where available, or to inform future research. Conclusion This Delphi process has created a beta version of an RDC for use with BMS. This will allow future clinical research within BMS to be carried out to a higher standard, ensuring only patients with true BMS are included. Further validation studies will be required alongside refinement of the RDC as trialling progresses.

No abstract