Correlation between self-reported and clinically based diagnoses of bruxism in temporomandibular disorders patients

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 40; no. 11; pp. 803 - 809
• Main Authors: Paesani, D. A., Lobbezoo, F., Gelos, C., Guarda-Nardini, L., Ahlberg, J., Manfredini, D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.11.2013
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Argentina - epidemiology; bruxism; Bruxism - diagnosis; Bruxism - epidemiology; clinical examination; diagnosis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Self Report; Sleep Bruxism - diagnosis; Sleep Bruxism - epidemiology; Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome - epidemiology; Wakefulness; Young Adult; Argentina; diagnosis; bruxism; self-report; clinical examination
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.12101

Summary The present investigation was performed in a population of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD), and it was designed to assess the correlation between self‐reported questionnaire‐based bruxism diagnosis and a diagnosis based on history taking plus clinical examination. One‐hundred‐fifty‐nine patients with TMD underwent an assessment including a questionnaire investigating five bruxism‐related items (i.e. sleep grinding, sleep grinding referral by bed partner, sleep clenching, awake clenching, awake grinding) and an interview (i.e. oral history taking with specific focus on bruxism habits) plus a clinical examination to evaluate bruxism signs and symptoms. The correlation between findings of the questionnaire, viz., patients' report, and findings of the interview/oral history taking plus clinical examination, viz., clinicians' diagnosis, was assessed by means of φ coefficient. The highest correlations were achieved for the sleep grinding referral item (φ = 0·932) and for the awake clenching item (φ = 0·811), whilst lower correlation values were found for the other items (φ values ranging from 0·363 to 0·641). The percentage of disagreement between the two diagnostic approaches ranged between 1·8% and 18·2%. Within the limits of the present investigation, it can be suggested that a strong positive correlation between a self‐reported and a clinically based approach to bruxism diagnosis can be achieved as for awake clenching, whilst lower levels of correlation were detected for sleep‐time activities.