2014
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12147
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of lycopene‐enriched virgin olive oil for treating burning mouth syndrome: a double‐blind randomised

Abstract: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is an intensive chronic oral mucosal pain condition of unknown aetiology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of lycopene-enriched virgin olive oil used to treat the condition, comparing this with a placebo. This study took the form of a double-bind, randomised clinical trial. A total of 60 patients with BMS were randomly divided into two groups: Group I (n = 30) treated with lycopene-enriched virgin olive oil (300 ppm) (1.5 mL three times a day) and Grou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
59
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(122 reference statements)
1
59
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1). Eleven studies, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] were excluded because conventional oil pulling was not part of the intervention, and four 25-28 because they were not RCTs. One study 29 was excluded because conventional cooking oil was not used as intervention, and another 30 because it was a nonhuman study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Eleven studies, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] were excluded because conventional oil pulling was not part of the intervention, and four 25-28 because they were not RCTs. One study 29 was excluded because conventional cooking oil was not used as intervention, and another 30 because it was a nonhuman study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 (5.6%) Patient‐rated benefit, satisfaction, tolerability of treatment (Cano‐Carrillo et al, ; Treldal et al, )…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this systematic review, nearly 75% of the RCTs used an existing BMS definition to guide case selection (Cavalcanti & da Silveira, ; Femiano, ; Femiano & Scully, ; Gremeau‐Richard, Dubray, Aublet‐Cuvelier, Ughetto, & Woda, ; Gremeau‐Richard et al., ; Lopez‐Jornet, Camacho‐Alonso, & Andujar‐Mateos, ; Marino, Torretta, Capaccio, Pignataro, & Spadari, ; Petruzzi, Lauritano, De Benedittis, Baldoni, & Serpico, ; Sardella et al., , ; Spanemberg, Lopez Lopez, de Figueiredo, Cherubini, & Salum, ; Spanemberg et al., ), most commonly that by IASP (Cano‐Carrillo, Pons‐Fuster, & Lopez‐Jornet, ; Cavalcanti & da Silveira, ; Gremeau‐Richard et al., ; Jorgensen & Pedersen, ; Lopez‐Jornet et al., ; Marino et al., ; Palacios‐Sánchez, Moreno‐Lopez, Cerero‐Lapiedra, Llamas‐Martinez, & Esparza‐Gomez, ; Sardella et al., ; Silva, Siqueira, Teixeira, & Siqueira, ; Spanemberg et al., ; Umezaki et al., ) or IHS (Arduino et al., ; Carbone, Pentenero, Carrozzo, Ippolito, & Gandolfo, ; Jurisic Kvesic et al., ; Lopez‐Jornet, Camacho‐Alonso, & Leon‐Espinosa, ; López‐Jornet, Camacho‐Alonso, & Molino‐Pagan, ; Tammiala‐Salonen & Forssell, ; Valenzuela & Lopez‐Jornet, ; Valenzuela, Pons‐Fuster, & Lopez‐Jornet, ). However, the most current BMS definition by IASP and IHS differs (IASP, ; IHS, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%