PhD student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FOB/USP), Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Post graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FOB/USP), Bauru, SP, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Nov;132(5):982.e1-982.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.03.009. Epub 2023 Apr 15.
The relationship of awake bruxism with pain is still unclear.
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate awake bruxism behavior for 1 week in healthy young adults with ecological momentary assessment, assess its relationship with masticatory muscle tenderness, and the participation of endogenous analgesia.
A total of 150 healthy participants were provided with a smartphone application that sent 10 alerts at random intervals every day. The participants were instructed to report in real time which of the following awake bruxism behaviors best represented their current condition: relaxed jaw muscles, tooth contact, tooth clenching, tooth grinding, or jaw bracing. At baseline, participants underwent recordings of the pressure pain threshold and conditioned pain modulation of the masticatory muscles. Pressure pain threshold recording was also repeated on the last day of the study. A t test was used to compare the first and the last pressure pain threshold recording after 1 week with an ecological momentary assessment evaluation. The Pearson correlation test was performed to evaluate the correlation between variables (α=.05).
Overall compliance was 75.9%. The average frequency of relaxed jaw muscles was 54.5%, tooth contact 29.4%, jaw bracing 5.8%, tooth clenching 9.7%, and tooth grinding 0.6%. The average frequency of a distinct awake bruxism behavior was 45.5%. A statistically significant increase in pressure pain threshold values was found (P=.001; P=.001; P=.045 for right and left anterior temporalis and left masseter, respectively). No significant correlation was found between the frequency of awake bruxism behaviors, the pressure pain threshold, and conditioned pain modulation (P>.05).
The most prevalent behavior was tooth contact (29.4%). No relationship was found between awake bruxism behaviors and masticatory muscle tenderness or endogenous analgesia.
清醒磨牙症与疼痛的关系仍不清楚。
本临床研究的目的是通过生态瞬时评估评估健康年轻成年人 1 周内清醒磨牙症行为,评估其与咀嚼肌压痛的关系,以及内源性镇痛的参与。
总共向 150 名健康参与者提供了一个智能手机应用程序,该程序每天随机间隔发送 10 次警报。参与者被指示实时报告以下哪种清醒磨牙行为最能代表他们当前的情况:放松的颌肌、牙齿接触、牙齿紧咬、牙齿研磨或下颌支撑。在基线时,参与者接受了咀嚼肌的压力疼痛阈值和条件性疼痛调制记录。在研究的最后一天也重复了压力疼痛阈值记录。使用 t 检验比较 1 周后生态瞬时评估评估的第一次和最后一次压力疼痛阈值记录。使用 Pearson 相关检验评估变量之间的相关性(α=.05)。
总体依从率为 75.9%。放松颌肌的平均频率为 54.5%,牙齿接触为 29.4%,下颌支撑为 5.8%,牙齿紧咬为 9.7%,牙齿研磨为 0.6%。明显的清醒磨牙行为的平均频率为 45.5%。发现压力疼痛阈值值有统计学显著增加(P=.001;P=.001;P=.045 分别为右侧和左侧前颞肌和左侧咬肌)。清醒磨牙行为的频率、压力疼痛阈值和条件性疼痛调制之间没有发现显著相关性(P>.05)。
最常见的行为是牙齿接触(29.4%)。清醒磨牙症行为与咀嚼肌压痛或内源性镇痛之间没有关系。