Search

OBJECTIVE: In line with a similar recent proposal for sleep bruxism (SB), defining clinically oriented research routes to implement knowledge on awake bruxism (AB) metrics is important for an enhanced comprehension of the full bruxism spectrum, i.e. better assessment and more efficient management. METHODS: We summarised current strategies for AB assessment and proposed a research route for improving its metrics. RESULTS: Most of the literature focuses on bruxism in general or SB in particular, whilst knowledge on AB is generally fragmental. Assessment can be based on non-instrumental or instrumental approaches. The former include self-report (questionnaires, oral history) and clinical examination, whilst the latter include electromyography (EMG) of jaw muscles during wakefulness as well as the technology-enhanced ecological momentary assesment (EMA). Phenotyping of different AB activities should be the target of a research task force. In the absence of available data on the frequency and intensity of wake-time bruxism-type masticatory muscle activity, any speculation about the identification of thresholds and criteria to identify bruxers is premature. Research routes in the field must focus on the improvement of data reliability and validity. CONCLUSIONS: Probing deeper into the study of AB metrics is a fundamental step to assist clinicians in preventing and managing the putative consequences at the individual level. The present manuscript proposes some possible research routes to advance current knowledge. At different levels, instrumentally-based and subject-based information must be gathered in a universally accepted standardized approach.

Background: Bruxism is a jaw-muscle activity characterized by teeth grinding and clenching. While many of its negative consequences (e.g., jaw-muscle pain, tooth fractures) are of particular interest to dentists, new insights underline the need for physicians to be knowledgeable about bruxism. In order to facilitate transfer of knowledge across disciplines, our objective was to assess what top-ranking medical journals have published on bruxism. Besides, we tested the insights described there against current science regarding the definition, assessment, epidemiology, etiology, consequences, comorbidities, and management of bruxism. Results: In the past century, the four top-ranking medical journals have provided their readership with various bits and pieces of information on bruxism. While some of these insights have withstood the test of time, others are somewhat outdated. Further, the identified publications provide an incomplete picture of what physicians should know. The present article helps reduce this knowledge gap. Conclusion: The role of the physician with regard to bruxism focuses mainly on its assessment and management, while insight into risk factors and comorbid conditions of bruxism is essential to high-level patient care. It is hoped that this article will contribute to improve the long-needed interdisciplinary collaboration between physicians and dentists regarding the assessment and management of bruxing patients.

Objective: This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences. Methods: The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications. Results: The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject-Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self-report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra- and Extra-Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep-related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non-Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific su