Diagnostic criteria for bruxism: A scoping review
Background: A scoping review was conducted to explore all the methods and criteria used in primary research on bruxism diagnosis. Methods: A pre-defined and validated search was carried out in the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, PeDro, LILACS, and Epistemonikos databases. Primary studies conducted...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/209740 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/209740 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Bruxisme Diagnòstic Bruxism Diagnosis |
| Sumario: | Background: A scoping review was conducted to explore all the methods and criteria used in primary research on bruxism diagnosis. Methods: A pre-defined and validated search was carried out in the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, PeDro, LILACS, and Epistemonikos databases. Primary studies conducted on bruxism as primary condition in the adult population were included. The selection phases were carried out by peers, and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer or by consensus. Data extraction and manual tracing were done in order to identify the relevant studies. Results: The search and selection strategy identified 472 publications, and after manual tracing, 423 studies were selected for analysis. The results on diagnostic methods were grouped into 10 categories. Different subcategories were described within these categories, resulting in a total of 73 diagnostic methods: physical examination (n = 11), questionnaires (n = 12), polysomnography (n = 13), electromyography (n = 5), the International Classification for Sleep Disorders from the American Association of Sleep Medicine (ICSD-AASM) (n = 3), intraoral devices (n = 10), history (n = 7), audio-video recordings (n = 3), smartphone applications (n = 2), and others (n = 7). In addition, the combinations of methods used in the primary research were also analyzed. The prevalence of use was calculated for all diagnostic categories and subcategories, as well as for the combinations. Conclusion: There was high heterogeneity in primary research regarding the diagnosis of bruxism. There is evidence that not all diagnostic methods are properly validated. Future research should focus on validating these methods and developing the best tool in terms of reliability and cost-effectiveness for the diagnosis of bruxism. |
|---|