Cross-Cultural Differences and Clinical Presentations in Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of Italian and Romanian Outpatient Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) is a chronic orofacial pain disorder characterized by persistent intraoral burning sensations without visible mucosal lesions. Although its biopsychosocial complexity is increasingly recognized, cross-cultural comparison data remain limited. Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed 60 patients with BMS (30 Italian, 30 Romanian) who underwent standardized clinical, psychological, and sleep evaluations. Data collected included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic history, comorbidities, and symptomatology. The assessment tools used included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Statistical comparisons were conducted using Mann–Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests with Bonferroni correction. Results: No significant differences were observed in age, sex, or body mass index. Italian patients had fewer years of education (p = 0.001), higher pain intensity (NRS, p < 0.001), poorer sleep quality (PSQI, ESS, p = 0.001), and more frequent pre-existing sleep disorders (p < 0.001). Romanian patients showed higher levels of anxiety (HAM-A, p < 0.001), longer diagnostic delays (p = 0.002), and more dysesthetic or perceptual symptoms, including tingling and oral dysmorphism (p < 0.05). Stressful events before onset were more common among Romanians (p < 0.001), while Italians more often received a correct diagnosis at first consultation (p = 0.005). Conclusions: This first cross-national comparison of BMS in Western and Eastern Europe shows that cultural, healthcare, and clinician education differences can shape symptom profiles, comorbidities, and diagnostic delays, underscoring the need for personalized, country-specific management strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".