ArticleOral diseases2024
Clinical characteristics and salivary biomarkers of burning mouth syndrome.
Article in Oral diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Capsaicin Effective in Relieving the Symptoms of Burning Mouth Syndrome? A Systematic Review.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Salivary Proteome-Microbiome Profiling in Burning Mouth Syndrome Might Highlight Mucin-Related Host-Microbe Features.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Salivary biomarkers in burning mouth syndrome: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A scientometric study on research trends and characteristics of burning mouth syndrome.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Studies on Burning Mouth Syndrome in the Past 20 Years: A Bibliometric and Visualised Analysis.International dental journal · 2025Review
- Clinical characteristics and salivary biomarkers of burning mouth syndrome.Oral diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the clinical characteristics and salivary biomarkers in each type of burning mouth syndrome (BMS) patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-eight postmenopausal female patients with BMS were included. Fifty and 21 patients were assigned to the primary and secondary groups, respectively. Twenty-seven patients with both primary and secondary characteristics were assigned to the intermediate group. Comprehensive clinical characteristics and salivary biomarkers were analyzed.
resultsSignificant differences in age, proportion of hyposalivator patients based on unstimulated whole saliva (UWS), symptom distribution, severties of burning sensation and effect of oral complaints in daily life (Eff-life), and positive symptom distress index (PSDI) were observed among the three groups. The primary group had significant higher UWS flow rate, fewer UWS hyposalivator proportions, and lesser severity of Eff-life than the secondary group. The intermediate group had significantly greater intensities of burning sensation and Eff-life and higher PSDI score than did the primary group. The primary group had significantly higher cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) levels in stimulated whole saliva than did the secondary group.
conclusionsThis study's findings show that clinical characteristics differentiate each BMS type. Cortisol and DHEA levels are potential salivary biomarkers for discriminating between the primary and secondary types of BMS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.