Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism.

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 subscales), are included. A user's guide for scoring the different items is also provided to ease administration. CONCLUSIONS: The instrument is now ready for on-field testing and further refinement. It can be anticipated that it will help in collecting data on bruxism in such a comprehensive way to have an impact on several clinical and research fields.

The development of the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB): An international road map.

This paper summarises the background reasoning and work that led to the selection of the items included in the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), also introducing the list of items. The instrument is currently being tested for face validity and on-field comprehension. The underlying premise is that the different motor activities included in the bruxism spectrum (e.g. clenching vs. grinding, with or without teeth contact) potentially need to be discriminated from each other, based on their purportedly different aetiology, comorbidities and potential consequences. Focus should be on a valid impression of the activities' frequency, intensity and duration. The methods that can be used for the above purposes can be grouped into strategies that collect information from the patient's history (subject-based), from the clinical assessment performed by an examiner (clinically based) or from the use of instruments to measure certain outcomes (instrumentally based). The three strategies can apply to all aspects of bruxism (i.e. status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences). The STAB will help gathering information on many aspects, factors and conditions that are currently poorly investigated in the field of bruxism. To this purpose, it is divided into two axes. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and potential consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental assessment (technology report). Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid role for bruxism. This comprehensive multidimensional assessment system will allow building predictive model for clinical and research purposes.

In-vivo kinematic assessment of alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacements by means of helical axis: A cohort study with historical control.

Alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement (TJR) is a surgical procedure used to restore normal mandibular function when conservative therapies fail. The instantaneous helical axis (HA), is a mathematical model used to visualize globally rigid body kinematics. It can be applied to mandibular motion for quantification of movement patterns and irregularities. Aim of this study was to analyze HA pathways in subjects with unilateral and bilateral TJR and compare them to a control group. An optoelectronic system was employed to track mouth opening/closing cycles (n = 3) of 15 patients (7 operated unilaterally, 8 bilaterally, 11 F, aged 24-72) and 12 controls (6 F, aged 23-40). HA position in space was determined for 30 equally-distributed steps of the observed movement. Total mandibular rotation around HA (Φtot) and total translation along HA (Ttot) were determined. Angles between HA and the anatomical coordinate system of the head (θx, θy, θz); global fluctuation of HA spatial orientation (θe), distance between condylar center (CP) and HA (dCP) and its projections on the axes (xdCP, ydCP, zdCP) were calculated. Overall, Φtot was larger in controls than in bilaterally operated subjects (p = 0.002, p = 0.003) and θz was larger in unilaterally operated subjects than in controls (p = 0.004) and bilaterally operated subjects (p = 0.002, p = 0.024). During opening, θe¯ was smaller in controls than in unilaterally operated subjects (p = 0.01). The distance dCP was smaller for alloplastic joints than for controls (p < 0.01 overall). In conclusion, mandibular HA pathways in patients with TJR differ significantly from controls in terms of spatial location and variability.

Signal acquisition and analysis of ambulatory electromyographic recordings for the assessment of sleep bruxism: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory electromyographic (EMG) devices are increasingly being used in sleep bruxism studies. EMG signal acquisition, analysis and scoring methods vary between studies. This may impact comparability of studies and the assessment of sleep bruxism in patients. OBJECTIVES: (a) To provide an overview of EMG signal acquisition and analysis methods of recordings from limited-channel ambulatory EMG devices for the assessment of sleep bruxism; and (b) to provide an overview of outcome measures used in sleep bruxism literature utilising such devices. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature was performed. Online databases PubMed and Semantics Scholar were searched for studies published in English until 7 October 2020. Data on five categories were extracted: recording hardware, recording logistics, signal acquisition, signal analysis and sleep bruxism outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies were included, published between 1977 and 2020. Recording hardware was generally well described. Reports of participant instructions in device handling and of dealing with failed recordings were often lacking. Basic elements of signal acquisition, for example amplifications factors, impedance and bandpass settings, and signal analysis, for example rectification, signal processing and additional filtering, were underreported. Extensive variability was found for thresholds used to characterise sleep bruxism events. Sleep bruxism outcomes varied, but typically represented frequency, duration and/or intensity of masticatory muscle activity (MMA). CONCLUSION: Adequate and standardised reporting of recording procedures is highly recommended. In future studies utilising ambulatory EMG devices, the focus may need to shift from the concept of scoring sleep bruxism events to that of scoring the whole spectrum of MMA.

Towards a Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB)-Overview and general remarks of a multidimensional bruxism evaluation system.

The aim of the present paper was to give an overview of the general project and to present the macrostructure of a comprehensive multidimensional toolkit for the assessment of bruxism, viz. a bruxism evaluation system. This is a necessary intermediate step that will be detailed in a successive extended publication and will ultimately lead to the definition of a Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) as the final product. Two invitation-only workshops were held during the 2018 and 2019 General Session & Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) meetings. Participants of the IADR closed meetings were split into two groups, to put the basis for a multidimensional evaluation system composed of two main axes: an evaluation Axis A with three assessment domains (ie subject-based, clinically based and instrumentally based assessment) and an aetiological/risk factors Axis B assessing different groups of factors and conditions (ie psychosocial assessment; concurrent sleep and non-sleep conditions; drug and substance use or abuse; and additional factors). The work of the two groups that led to the identification of different domains for assessment is summarised in this manuscript, along with a road map for future researches. Such an approach will allow clinicians and researchers to modulate evaluation of bruxism patients with a comprehensive look at the clinical impact of the different bruxism activities and aetiologies. The ultimate goal of this multidimensional system is to facilitate the refinement of decision-making algorithms in the clinical setting.