Search

Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is an intraoral chronic burning or dysesthetic sensation, without clinically evident causative lesions on clinical examination and investigation., Aim: To assess immediate and weekly effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on BMS patients., Methods: Thirty BMS patients were treated intra-orally with photobiomodulation 940(±10) nm (InGaAsP) 3 W, semi-conductor diode, weekly, for up to 10 weeks. Pain intensity, measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and characteristics were recorded immidiately after each treatment, along with a weekly average VAS., Results: Immediate mean VAS score decreased from a starting score of 7.80 ± 1.83 to 2.07 ± 2.55 (p < 0.001). The mean weekly VAS score for the week after the final treatment session was higher (5.73 ± 2.80, p < 0.001) than the immediate response, but still significantly lower than the starting score (p = 0.017). We observed a trend of pain improvement with more treatments, but this was only statistically significant up to the third treatment. Male gender and unilateral pain correlated with better PBM efficacy (p = 0.017, 0.022, respectively)., Conclusion: PBM provides significant immediate pain relief for BMS patients after each treatment; however, the efficacy decreases notably over the following week. A trend of increasing pain relief across treatments was observed, statistically significant up to the third treatment., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: To assess the effect of major salivary gland intraductal irrigations (IGs) to relieve mouth dryness., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients with mouth dryness who underwent major salivary gland IG during 2013-2015. Records included demographics, medical background, dry mouth etiologies and symptomatology, and results of sialometry and sialo-cone-beam computerized tomography. Subjective improvement following the IG procedure (yes/no) and sustained subjective improvement (mouth dryness relief for ≥1 month) were recorded. Objective improvement was assessed by comparing the mean unstimulated (USF) and stimulated (SSF) whole salivary flow (WSF) rate before and after the IG., Results: Seventy-four patients were included [mean age: 59.08 ± 12.46 years]. Improvement was detected in the USF (p = .027), but not in the SSF (p = .878). Fifty-five (84.6%) noted subjective improvement, while 10 (15.4%) did not. Subjective improvement was positively associated with the USF following IG (p = .037), with salivary gland swelling episodes (p = .033), and with difficulties in swallowing dry foods (p = .014). Of those with subjective improvement, 45 (81.8%) reported sustained improvement, which was positively associated with lack of a gritty eye sensation (p = .042) and abnormal sialo-CBCT findings (p = .001)., Conclusions: Major salivary gland IG is a simple and safe procedure that may relieve dry mouth for a relatively extended duration. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings and assess their underlying mechanisms., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this review, we discuss the management of chronic orofacial pain (COFP) patients with insomnia. Diagnostic work-up and follow-up routines of COFP patients should include assessment of sleep problems. Management is based on a multidisciplinary approach, addressing the factors that modulate the pain experience as well as insomnia and including both non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities. Parallel to treatment, patients should receive therapy for comorbid medical and psychiatric disorders, and possible substance abuse that may be that may trigger or worsen the COFP and/or their insomnia. Insomnia treatment should begin with non-pharmacological therapy, to minimize potential side effects, drug interactions, and risk of substance abuse associated with pharmacological therapy. Behavioral therapies for insomnia include the following: sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, multicomponent behavioral therapy or brief behavioral therapy for insomnia, relaxation strategies, stimulus control, and sleep restriction. Approved U.S. Food and Drug Administration medications to treat insomnia include the following: benzodiazepines (estazolam, flurazepam, temazepam, triazolam, and quazepam), non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (eszopiclone, zaleplon, zolpidem), the melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon, the antidepressant doxepin, and the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant. Chronic orofacial pain can greatly improve following treatment of the underlying insomnia, and therefore, re-evaluation of COFP is advised after 1 month of treatment., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Oral appliances (OA) are recommended for patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea who fail to comply with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. This mixed-methods study aimed to quantify adherence to OA therapy and evaluate subjective reasons associated with non-adherence., Materials and Methods: The medical records of 52 patients with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 40, treated with OA after discontinuation of CPAP treatment, were examined for OA adherence. Patients were divided according to usage at the time of a phone interview. The USER group included all forms of usage, whereas those who completely ceased using the OA were in the NUSE group. The timing of the phone interview was from five months to six years (average 44.63 ± 17.17 months) after OA delivery., Results: The overall adherence rate was 57.7% (30/52 patients). The mean usage times were 10.07 ± 8.96 and 44.30 ± 17.3 months in the NUSE and NUSE groups, respectively. The main factors associated with non-adherence were concerns about the effects of the OA on teeth (22%) and insufficient efficacy (22%). Other factors were discomfort (15%) and improved well-being following weight loss (15%). The overall number of interfering and discontinuity factors was significantly higher in the NUSE group than in the USER group (P = 0.041). Nine (17.3%) of 52 patients resumed CPAP use. Subjective and objective outcomes, determined by using a second sleep test with OA in 69.2% of patients, were related to the continuation of treatment., Conclusions: On-adherence to OA is strongly associated with patient reservations regarding the effects of the device on teeth, possible lack of efficacy, and discomfort. Clinicians should closely monitor adherence patterns and assess potential interfering factors during their diagnostic workup. Patients should be reassured regarding device safety, particularly following dental work that may interfere with the insertion of the OA., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Oral appliances for treating severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are recommended for patients who failed to comply with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate medium long-term outcome and success rates of oral appliances in patients with severe OSA., Methods: In a retrospective study, 52 OSA patients with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥40, who did not tolerate CPAP treatment, were enrolled and fitted with a modified Herbst oral appliance. A 2-year mean follow-up including a second somnography was conducted in 36 of the patients., Results: A significant reduction (P < 0.0001) in the AHI was demonstrated between the initial somnography (55.25 ± 10.79,) and the followed one (17.74 ± 11.0, n = 36). Overall, 57.7% of total study subjects (n = 52) and 63.9% (n = 36) that had sequential sonmogarphy continued using the device. The reduction in AHI in the user group was 42.4 ± 3.1 (n = 23), which was significantly higher (P = 0.013) than in the non-user group (28.9 ± 17.2; n = 13). Moreover, 53% (n = 19) reached AHI of <15., Conclusions: Oral appliances were found to be successful for treating for severe OSA after first-line treatment had failed., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)