Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The study aimed to validate the diagnostic system proposed by the Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) by correlating the results obtained based on questionnaire and non-instrumental and instrumental tools. <b>Methods:</b> The s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Adrian Marcel Popescu, Mihaela Ionescu, Diana Elena Vlăduțu, Sanda Mihaela Popescu, Iulia Roxana Marinescu, Monica Scrieciu, Veronica Mercuț
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-01-01
Series:Diagnostics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/200
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832588728839700480
author Adrian Marcel Popescu
Mihaela Ionescu
Diana Elena Vlăduțu
Sanda Mihaela Popescu
Iulia Roxana Marinescu
Monica Scrieciu
Veronica Mercuț
author_facet Adrian Marcel Popescu
Mihaela Ionescu
Diana Elena Vlăduțu
Sanda Mihaela Popescu
Iulia Roxana Marinescu
Monica Scrieciu
Veronica Mercuț
author_sort Adrian Marcel Popescu
collection DOAJ
description <b>Background/Objectives:</b> The study aimed to validate the diagnostic system proposed by the Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) by correlating the results obtained based on questionnaire and non-instrumental and instrumental tools. <b>Methods:</b> The study had three stages (questionnaire, clinical examination, and electromyographic study). The subjects completed a questionnaire and clinical exam. Positive signs of bruxism included oral mucosal signs and the presence of dental wear according to the BEWE index. In stage three, sEMG was performed after allocating subjects into four groups according to the questionnaire and clinical exam results: sleep bruxism (SB), awake bruxism (AB), sleep and awake bruxism (SB AB), and no bruxism (no B). After the third stage, a new selection was made, and the subjects were divided into four groups, according to sEMG results. Diagnostic accuracy was computed for possible bruxism SB and grinding and clenching sound diagnosis, possible bruxism AB and AB acknowledgment, possible bruxism SB AB, and tooth wear index. <b>Results:</b> For SB, the sensitivity and specificity of the tools were the highest. The non-instrumental questionnaire and clinical assessment identified 67% of SB cases and 89% without SB. For AB, the specificity was higher (84%), while the sensitivity was lower (55%), as almost half of the subjects were not aware of the presence of AB. The tests showed a low sensitivity (15%) but a high specificity (83%) for tooth wear. The absence of tooth wear was frequently associated with the absence of bruxism, while the presence of tooth wear did not necessarily imply the existence of bruxism. <b>Conclusions:</b> Non-instrumental evaluation of bruxism through questionnaires and clinical exams is valuable, especially for SB. Instrumental evaluation through electromyography remains a gold standard for bruxism diagnosis.
format Article
id doaj-art-d2ea73e6f1b94a6eaf7f6c188b6c293e
institution Kabale University
issn 2075-4418
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Diagnostics
spelling doaj-art-d2ea73e6f1b94a6eaf7f6c188b6c293e2025-01-24T13:29:05ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-01-0115220010.3390/diagnostics15020200Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism DiagnosticsAdrian Marcel Popescu0Mihaela Ionescu1Diana Elena Vlăduțu2Sanda Mihaela Popescu3Iulia Roxana Marinescu4Monica Scrieciu5Veronica Mercuț6Department of Dental Prosthetics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, RomaniaDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The study aimed to validate the diagnostic system proposed by the Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) by correlating the results obtained based on questionnaire and non-instrumental and instrumental tools. <b>Methods:</b> The study had three stages (questionnaire, clinical examination, and electromyographic study). The subjects completed a questionnaire and clinical exam. Positive signs of bruxism included oral mucosal signs and the presence of dental wear according to the BEWE index. In stage three, sEMG was performed after allocating subjects into four groups according to the questionnaire and clinical exam results: sleep bruxism (SB), awake bruxism (AB), sleep and awake bruxism (SB AB), and no bruxism (no B). After the third stage, a new selection was made, and the subjects were divided into four groups, according to sEMG results. Diagnostic accuracy was computed for possible bruxism SB and grinding and clenching sound diagnosis, possible bruxism AB and AB acknowledgment, possible bruxism SB AB, and tooth wear index. <b>Results:</b> For SB, the sensitivity and specificity of the tools were the highest. The non-instrumental questionnaire and clinical assessment identified 67% of SB cases and 89% without SB. For AB, the specificity was higher (84%), while the sensitivity was lower (55%), as almost half of the subjects were not aware of the presence of AB. The tests showed a low sensitivity (15%) but a high specificity (83%) for tooth wear. The absence of tooth wear was frequently associated with the absence of bruxism, while the presence of tooth wear did not necessarily imply the existence of bruxism. <b>Conclusions:</b> Non-instrumental evaluation of bruxism through questionnaires and clinical exams is valuable, especially for SB. Instrumental evaluation through electromyography remains a gold standard for bruxism diagnosis.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/200bruxism diagnosticquestionnaireclinical examclenchinggrindingsEMG
spellingShingle Adrian Marcel Popescu
Mihaela Ionescu
Diana Elena Vlăduțu
Sanda Mihaela Popescu
Iulia Roxana Marinescu
Monica Scrieciu
Veronica Mercuț
Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
Diagnostics
bruxism diagnostic
questionnaire
clinical exam
clenching
grinding
sEMG
title Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
title_full Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
title_fullStr Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
title_full_unstemmed Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
title_short Non-Instrumental and Instrumental Tools Validity in Bruxism Diagnostics
title_sort non instrumental and instrumental tools validity in bruxism diagnostics
topic bruxism diagnostic
questionnaire
clinical exam
clenching
grinding
sEMG
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/2/200
work_keys_str_mv AT adrianmarcelpopescu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT mihaelaionescu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT dianaelenavladutu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT sandamihaelapopescu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT iuliaroxanamarinescu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT monicascrieciu noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics
AT veronicamercut noninstrumentalandinstrumentaltoolsvalidityinbruxismdiagnostics