1,721,004 research outputs found
Why not stop looking at bruxism as a black/white condition? Aetiology could be unrelated to clinical consequences
No full textstatus: Publishe
Are bruxism and the bite causally related?
No full textIn the dental profession, the belief that bruxism and dental (mal-)occlusion (the bite) are causally related is widespread. The aim of this review was to critically assess the available literature on this topic. A PubMed search of the English-language literature, using the query Bruxism [Majr] AND (Dental Occlusion [Majr] OR Malocclusion [Majr]), yielded 93 articles, of which 46 papers were finally included in the present review*. Part of the included publications dealt with the possible associations between bruxism and aspects of occlusion, from which it was concluded that neither for occlusal interferences nor for factors related to the anatomy of the oro-facial skeleton, there is any evidence available that they are involved in the aetiology of bruxism. Instead, there is a growing awareness of other factors (viz. psychosocial and behavioural ones) being important in the aetiology of bruxism. Another part of the included papers assessed the possible mediating role of occlusion between bruxism and its purported consequences (e.g. tooth wear, loss of periodontal tissues, and temporomandibular pain and dysfunction). Even though most dentists agree that bruxism may have several adverse effects on the masticatory system, for none of these purported adverse effects, evidence for a mediating role of occlusion and articulation has been found to date. Hence, based on this review, it should be concluded that to date, there is no evidence whatsoever for a causal relationship between bruxism and the bite
Self-reported bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: findings from two specialised centres
No full textThe aims of this investigation were to report the frequency of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) diagnoses and the prevalence of self-reported awake and sleep bruxism as well as to describe the possible differences between findings of two specialised centres as a basis to suggest recommendations for future improvements in diagnostic homogeneity and accuracy. A standardised Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) assessment was performed on patients attending both TMD Clinics, viz., at the University of Padova, Italy (n = 219; 74% women) and at the University of Tel Aviv, Israel (n = 397; 79% women), to assign axis I physical diagnoses and to record data on self-reported awake and sleep bruxism. Significant differences were shown between the two clinic samples as for the frequency of TMD diagnoses (chi-square, P < 0.001) and the prevalence of at least one positive response to bruxism items (chi-square, P < 0.001). The more widespread use of TMJ imaging techniques in one clinic sample led to a higher prevalence of multiple diagnoses, and the higher prevalence of self-reported bruxism in patients with myofascial pain alone described in the other clinic sample was not replicated, suggesting that the different adoption of clinical and imaging criteria to diagnose TMD may influence also reports on their association with bruxism. From this investigation, it emerged that the features of the study samples as well as the different interpretation of the same diagnostic guidelines may have strong influence on epidemiological reports on bruxism and TMD prevalence and on the association between the two disorders
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Psychosocial impairment in temporomandibular disorders patients. RDC/TMD axis II findings from a multicentre study
No full textObjectives: The relationship between the rate of chronic pain-related disability and depression and somatization levels as well as the influence of pain duration on Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) axis II findings were assessed in a three centre investigation. Methods: The study sample (N = 1149; F:M 4.1:1, m.a. 38.6 years) consisted of patients seeking for TMD treatment and undergoing RDC/TMD axis II psychosocial assessment to be rated in chronic pain-related disability (Graded Chronic Pain Scale, GCPS), depression (Symptoms Checklist-90[SCL-90] scale for depression, DEP) and somatization levels (SCL-90 scale for non-specific physical symptoms, SOM). The null hypotheses to be tested were that (1) no correlation existed between GCPS categories and DEP and SOM scores, and (2) no differences emerged between patients with pain from more or less than 6 months as for the prevalence of the different degrees of pain-related impairment, depression, and somatization. Results: In the overall sample, the prevalence of high pain-related disability (GCPS grades III or IV), severe depression and somatization was 16.9%, 21.4%, and 28.5%, respectively. A correlation was shown between GCPS and both DEP and SOM categories (Spearman's correlation test, p <0.001). A significant association between pain lasting from more than 6 months and high GCPS scores was shown (x(2), p <0.001), while no association was found between DEP and SOM scores and pain duration in the overall sample (x2, p = 0.742 and p = 0.364, respectively). Conclusions: Pain-related disability was found to be strongly related with depression and somatization levels as well as associated with pain duration. Depression and somatization scores were not associated with pain duration. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
- …
