OBJECTIVE: To study the quality of life in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS), our primary aim was to compare BMS patients with healthy controls and the secondary aim was to compare subgroups of BMS patients on the type of therapy received; using the Medical Outcome Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) as measurement instruments. METHOD: Sixty consecutive patients (10 males and 50 females) with BMS were studied in the Department of Oral Medicine (Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Murcia, Spain), while 60 healthy patients were used as controls. The Spanish version of the SF-36 was used to evaluate general quality of life, together with the OHIP-49 in its Spanish version. RESULTS: Regarding general quality of life as assessed with the SF-36, and on comparing the BMS vs. the control groups, lower scores were obtained in the former in all domains (P < 0.001). The OHIP-49 in turn yielded significant differences in each of the domains vs. the controls. No significant differences were found between the patients with BMS in any domain regarding parafunctional habits and the presence of dentures. In relation to the different treatments, significant differences were recorded in functional limitation (P = 0.02) and physical pain (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Patients with BMS yield poorer scores on all scales vs. the healthy controls when applying the SF-36 and OHIP-49.
OBJECTIVE: To study the quality of life in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS), our primary aim was to compare BMS patients with healthy controls and the secondary aim was to compare subgroups of BMS patients on the type of therapy received; using the Medical Outcome Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) as measurement instruments. METHOD: Sixty consecutive patients (10 males and 50 females) with BMS were studied in the Department of Oral Medicine (Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Murcia, Spain), while 60 healthy patients were used as controls. The Spanish version of the SF-36 was used to evaluate general quality of life, together with the OHIP-49 in its Spanish version. RESULTS: Regarding general quality of life as assessed with the SF-36, and on comparing the BMS vs. the control groups, lower scores were obtained in the former in all domains (P < 0.001). The OHIP-49 in turn yielded significant differences in each of the domains vs. the controls. No significant differences were found between the patients with BMS in any domain regarding parafunctional habits and the presence of dentures. In relation to the different treatments, significant differences were recorded in functional limitation (P = 0.02) and physical pain (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION:Patients with BMS yield poorer scores on all scales vs. the healthy controls when applying the SF-36 and OHIP-49.
Authors: Roddy McMillan; Heli Forssell; John Ag Buchanan; Anne-Marie Glenny; Jo C Weldon; Joanna M Zakrzewska Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-11-18
Authors: Fabrício T A Souza; Tálita P M Santos; Vanessa F Bernardes; Antônio L Teixeira; Arthur M Kümmer; Tarcília A Silva; Mauro H N G Abreu Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Johanna Tanner; Tuija Teerijoki-Oksa; Hannu Kautiainen; Pekka Vartiainen; Eija Kalso; Heli Forssell Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2022-03-28