Instrumental assessment of sleep bruxism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of portable electromyography (EMG) diagnostic devices compared to the reference standard method polysomnography (PSG) in assessing sleep bruxism. This systematic review was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered with PROSPERO prior to the accomplishment of the main search. Ten clinical studies on humans, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable instrumental approaches with respect to PSG, were included in the review. Methodological shortcomings were identified by QUADAS-2 quality assessment. The certainty of the evidence analysis was established by different levels of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy was performed with multiple thresholds per study applying a two-stage random effects model, using the thresholds offered by the studies and based on the number of EMG bruxism events per hour presented by the participants. Five studies were included. The MA indicated that portable EMG diagnostic devices showed a very good diagnostic capacity, although a high variability is evident in the studies with some outliers. Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and high heterogeneity among included studies suggests that portable devices have shown high sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing sleep bruxism (SB) compared to polysomnography. The tests performed in the MA found an estimated optimal cut-off point of 7 events/hour of SB with acceptably high sensitivity and specificity for the EMG portable devices.

Is there an association between sleep bruxism and obstructive sleep apnea? A case-control polysomnographic investigation.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the statistical and epidemiological association between Sleep bruxism (SB) and Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) based on OSA severity, and to describe sleep data findings within the analyzed population. METHODS: A case-control study (N = 37) was conducted on subjects with and without OSA. All subjects underwent a full-night polysomnographic recording at the Sleep Unit (Clinical Neurophysiology Department) of San Carlos University Hospital. The diagnosis and severity of OSA were determined using ICSD-3 and AASM-2.6 scoring. The definitive SB diagnosis was obtained through a self-report test, physical examination, and PSG recordings. Variables used to study the association between both conditions included the apnea and hypopnea episodes, the Apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), the number of SB episodes per night, and the bruxism index. Chi2, correlations, and ANOVA were calculated. The epidemiological association was calculated using the OR. RESULTS: SB showed an epidemiological association with OSA, with an OR of 0.15 (0.036-0.68), suggesting it could be considered a protective factor (p < 0.05). OSA patients presented fewer average SB episodes (6.8 ± 12.31) than non-OSA patients (25.08 ± 31.68). SB episodes correlated negatively (p < 0.05) with the AHI and the number of hypopneas (p < 0.05). The average number of SB episodes was significantly higher in patients with mild OSA compared to those with severe OSA. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of patients with subclinical and mild OSA, SB may act as a protective factor. However, confirmation of these results with a larger sample size is necessary.