Search

This paper summarises the background reasoning and work that led to the selection of the items included in the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), also introducing the list of items. The instrument is currently being tested for face validity and on-field comprehension. The underlying premise is that the different motor activities included in the bruxism spectrum (e.g. clenching vs. grinding, with or without teeth contact) potentially need to be discriminated from each other, based on their purportedly different aetiology, comorbidities and potential consequences. Focus should be on a valid impression of the activities' frequency, intensity and duration. The methods that can be used for the above purposes can be grouped into strategies that collect information from the patient's history (subject-based), from the clinical assessment performed by an examiner (clinically based) or from the use of instruments to measure certain outcomes (instrumentally based). The three strategies can apply to all aspects of bruxism (i.e. status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences). The STAB will help gathering information on many aspects, factors and conditions that are currently poorly investigated in the field of bruxism. To this purpose, it is divided into two axes. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and potential consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental assessment (technology report). Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid role for bruxism. This comprehensive multidimensional assessment system will allow building predictive model for clinical and research purposes.

Objective: This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences. Methods: The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications. Results: The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject-Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self-report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra- and Extra-Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep-related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non-Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific su

Objective: This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences. Methods: The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications. Results: The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject-Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self-report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra- and Extra-Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep-related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non-Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific su

This paper summarises the background reasoning and work that led to the selection of the items included in the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), also introducing the list of items. The instrument is currently being tested for face validity and on-field comprehension. The underlying premise is that the different motor activities included in the bruxism spectrum (e.g. clenching vs. grinding, with or without teeth contact) potentially need to be discriminated from each other, based on their purportedly different aetiology, comorbidities and potential consequences. Focus should be on a valid impression of the activities' frequency, intensity and duration. The methods that can be used for the above purposes can be grouped into strategies that collect information from the patient's history (subject-based), from the clinical assessment performed by an examiner (clinically based) or from the use of instruments to measure certain outcomes (instrumentally based). The three strategies can apply to all aspects of bruxism (i.e. status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences). The STAB will help gathering information on many aspects, factors and conditions that are currently poorly investigated in the field of bruxism. To this purpose, it is divided into two axes. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and potential consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental assessment (technology report). Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid role for bruxism. This comprehensive multidimensional assessment system will allow building predictive model for clinical and research purposes.

The aim of the present paper was to give an overview of the general project and to present the macrostructure of a comprehensive multidimensional toolkit for the assessment of bruxism, viz. a bruxism evaluation system. This is a necessary intermediate step that will be detailed in a successive extended publication and will ultimately lead to the definition of a Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) as the final product. Two invitation-only workshops were held during the 2018 and 2019 General Session & Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) meetings. Participants of the IADR closed meetings were split into two groups, to put the basis for a multidimensional evaluation system composed of two main axes: an evaluation Axis A with three assessment domains (ie subject-based, clinically based and instrumentally based assessment) and an aetiological/risk factors Axis B assessing different groups of factors and conditions (ie psychosocial assessment; concurrent sleep and non-sleep conditions; drug and substance use or abuse; and additional factors). The work of the two groups that led to the identification of different domains for assessment is summarised in this manuscript, along with a road map for future researches. Such an approach will allow clinicians and researchers to modulate evaluation of bruxism patients with a comprehensive look at the clinical impact of the different bruxism activities and aetiologies. The ultimate goal of this multidimensional system is to facilitate the refinement of decision-making algorithms in the clinical setting.

Contains fulltext : 194767.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

This paper reports a European expert consensus statement on guidelines for the management of severe tooth wear. It focuses on the definition of physiological versus pathological tooth wear and recommends diagnosis, monitoring and counseling to define the activity of the wear. Restorative intervention should be delayed wherever possible, depending on patient wishes and the severity and activity of the wear. When restorative intervention is indicated and agreed with the patient, a conservative minimally invasive approach is recommended. Several examples of adhesive minimally invasive treatment protocols are presented., This paper reports a European expert consensus statement on guidelines for the management of severe tooth wear. It focuses on the definition of physiological versus pathological tooth wear and recommends diagnosis, monitoring and counseling to define the activity of the wear. Restorative intervention should be delayed wherever possible, depending on patient wishes and the severity and activity of the wear. When restorative intervention is indicated and agreed with the patient, a conservative minimally invasive approach is recommended. Several examples of adhesive minimally invasive treatment protocols are presented.