Search

Introduction: Bruxism is defined as a repetitive masticatory muscle activity that can manifest it upon awakening (awake bruxism‐AB) or during sleep (sleep bruxism‐SB). Some forms of both, AB and SB can be associated to many other coexistent factors, considered of risk for the initiation and maintenance of the bruxism. Although controversial, the term 'secondary bruxism' has frequently been used to label these cases. The absence of an adequate definition of bruxism, the non‐distinction between the circadian manifestations and the report of many different measurement techniques, however, are important factors to be considered when judging the literature findings. The use (and abuse) of drugs, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and psychoactive substances, the presence of respiratory disorders during sleep, gastroesophageal reflux disorders and movement, neurological and psychiatric disorders are among these factors. The scarcity of controlled studies and the complexity and interactions among all aforementioned factors, unfortunately, does not allow to establish any causality or temporal association with SB and AB. The supposition that variables are related depends on different parameters, not clearly demonstrated in the available studies. Objectives: This narrative review aims at providing oral health care professionals with an update on the co‐risk factors and disorders possibly associated with bruxism. In addition, the authors discuss the appropriateness of the term 'secondary bruxism' as a valid diagnostic category based on the available evidence. Conclusion: The absence of an adequate definition of bruxism, the non‐distinction between the circadian manifestations and the report of many different measurement techniques found in many studies preclude any solid and convincing conclusion on the existence of the 'secondary' bruxism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This critical review describes key methodological aspects for a successful oro‐facial psychophysical evaluation of the somatosensory system and highlights the diagnostic value of somatosensory assessment and management perspectives based on somatosensory profiling. Methods: This topical review was based on a non‐systematic search for studies about somatosensory evaluation in oro‐facial pain in PubMed and Embase. Results: The recent progress regarding the psychophysical evaluation of somatosensory function was largely possible due to the development and application of valid, reliable and standardised psychophysical methods. Qualitative sensory testing may be useful as a screening tool to rule out relevant somatosensory abnormalities. Nevertheless, the patient should preferably be referred to a more comprehensive assessment with the quantitative sensory testing battery if confirmation of somatosensory abnormalities is necessary. Moreover, the identification of relevant somatosensory alterations in chronic pain disorders that do not fulfil the current criteria to be regarded as neuropathic has also increased the usefulness of somatosensory evaluation as a feasible method to better characterise the patients and perhaps elucidate some underpinnings of the so‐called 'nociplastic' pain disorders. Finally, an additional benefit of oro‐facial pain treatment based on somatosensory profiling still needs to be demonstrated and convincing evidence of somatosensory findings as predictors of treatment efficacy in chronic oro‐facial pain awaits further studies. Conclusion: Psychophysical evaluation of somatosensory function in oro‐facial pain is still in its infancy but with a clear potential to continue to improve the assessment, diagnosis and management of oro‐facial pain patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]