Validity between signs and symptoms of sleep bruxism against a validated portable electromyographic device

• Márcio Lima Grossi ^[1] ; Lourenço Oliveira Castillo ^[1] ; Marcos Pascoal Pattussi ^[2] ; Georgia Meneghini Pinto ^[1] ; Ruy Teichert Filho ^[1]
  1. [1] Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

     Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

     Brasil

     
  2. [2] Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos

     Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos

     Brasil

     
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 16, Nº. 11 (November), 2024, págs. 1354-1360
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Sleep bruxism is a major research area in dentistry today and needs valid clinical means of diagnosis against valid instrumental methods. Purpose: To assess the validity of the most commonly reported sleep bruxism (SB) signs and symptoms in the literature against a polysomnography (PSG) validated portable electromyographic (EMG) device (BiteStrip®).

    Fifty young adults (40 women & 10 men, 18-30 years old) volunteered for the sequential and simultaneous administration of the SB signs and symptoms questionnaire versus the BiteStrip®. The SB signs and symptoms questionnaire was comprised of 19 items divided in 5 areas: a) Area 1: self-awareness of tooth grinding, clenching, and/or tooth sounds/noises, b) Area 2: headaches and/or facial pain, c) Area 3: muscle fatigue and/or hypertrophy, d) Area 4: clicking, crepitation and/or locking in the TMJ, and e) Area 5: tooth sensitivity, tooth wear/breaking, and/or cheek/tongue indentations. A cross-tabulation between the dichotomic test results (positive = 1, negative = 0) between the all five SB areas separately using quartiles (positive test result=75th percentile or higher, negative test result=50th percentile or lower) versus a positive test result of the BiteStrip® (score=1 or higher) was performed.

    Area 1 presented the highest sensitivity for SB screening (80.0%), but with low specificity (51.4%), diagnosing most SB cases, but with a high number of false positives. All other four areas had low sensitivity (range=37.9% to 58.6%) and screening capacity and are only useful if Area 1 is positive.

    Commonly reported SB signs and symptoms are not valid diagnostic measurements and can only be used as a screening method for either ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ SB diagnosis.