The role of xerostomia in burning mouth syndrome: a case-control study

• Published in: Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria Vol. 72; no. 2; pp. 91 - 98
• Main Authors: Silva, Luciana Alvarenga da, Siqueira, José Tadeu Tesseroli de, Teixeira, Manoel Jacobsen, Siqueira, Silvia Regina Dowgan Tesseroli de
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Portuguese
• Published: Brazil Academia Brasileira de Neurologia - ABNEURO 01.02.2014; Academia Brasileira de Neurologia (ABNEURO)
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amitriptyline - therapeutic use; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - therapeutic use; Burning Mouth Syndrome - complications; Burning Mouth Syndrome - drug therapy; Burning Mouth Syndrome - physiopathology; Case-Control Studies; dor orofacial; Double-Blind Method; Female; fluxo salivar; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; NEUROSCIENCES; PSYCHIATRY; Salivation; Sensory Thresholds; Socioeconomic Factors; síndrome ardência bucal; teste sensitivo quantitativo; Urea - administration & dosage; xerostomia; Xerostomia - complications; Xerostomia - drug therapy; Xerostomia - physiopathology; orofacial pain; síndrome ardência bucal; fluxo salivar; salivary flow; teste sensitivo quantitativo; xerostomia; dor orofacial; burning mouth syndrome; quantitative sensory testing
• ISSN: 0004-282X; 1678-4227; 1678-4227; 0004-282X
• DOI: 10.1590/0004-282x20130218

To assess the efficacy of anti-xerostomic topical medication (urea 10%) in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Thirty-eight subjects diagnosed with BMS according to the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines were randomized to either placebo (5% sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 0.15% methyl paraben, and 10% glycerol in distilled water qsp 100 g) or treatment (urea 10%) to be applied to the oral cavity 3-4 times per day for 3 months. The patients were evaluated before and after treatment with the following instruments: the EDOF-HC protocol (Orofacial Pain Clinic - Hospital das Clínicas), a xerostomia questionnaire, and quantitative sensory testing. There were no differences in salivary flow or gustative, olfactory, or sensory thresholds (P>0.05). Fifteen (60%) patients reported improvement with the treatments (P=0.336). In conclusion, there were no differences between groups, and both exhibited an association between reported improvement and salivation.