Detection of sleep bruxism: comparison between an electromyographic and electrocardiographic portable holter and polysomnography

Bruxism is a controversial phenomenon. Both its definition and the diagnostic procedure contribute to the fact that the literature about the aetiology of this disorder is difficult to interpret. There is, however, consensus about the multifactorial nature of the aetiology. Besides peripheral (morphological) factors, central (pathophysiological and psychological) factors can be distinguished. In the past, morphological factors, like occlusal discrepancies and the anatomy of the bony structures of the orofacial region, have been considered the main causative factors for bruxism. Nowadays, these factors play only a small role, if any. Recent focus is more on the pathophysiological factors. For example, bruxism has been suggested to be part of a sleep arousal response. In addition, bruxism appears to be modulated by various neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. More specifically, disturbances in the central dopaminergic system have been linked to bruxism. Further, factors like smoking, alcohol, drugs, diseases and trauma may be involved in the bruxism aetiology. Psychological factors like stress and personality are frequently mentioned in relation to bruxism as well. However, research to these factors comes to equivocal results and needs further attention. Taken all evidence together, bruxism appears to be mainly regulated centrally, not peripherally.

The present paper aims to systematically review the literature on the temporomandibular disorders (TMD)-bruxism relationship published from 1998 to 2008. A systematic search in the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was performed to identify all studies on humans assessing the relationship between TMD symptoms and bruxism diagnosed with any different approach. The selected articles were assessed independently by the 2 authors according to a structured reading of articles format (PICO). A total of 46 articles were included for discussion in the review and grouped into questionnaire/self-report (n = 21), clinical assessment (n = 7), experimental (n = 7), tooth wear (n = 5), polysomnographic (n = 4), or electromyographic (n = 2) studies. In several studies, the level of evidence was negatively influenced by a low level of specificity for the assessment of the bruxism-TMD relationship, because of the low prevalence of severe TMD patients in the studied samples and because of the use of self-report diagnosis of bruxism with some potential diagnostic bias. Investigations based on self-report or clinical bruxism diagnosis showed a positive association with TMD pain, but they are characterized by some potential bias and confounders at the diagnostic level (eg, pain as a criterion for bruxism diagnosis). Studies based on more quantitative and specific methods to diagnose bruxism showed much lower association with TMD symptoms. Anterior tooth wear was not found to be a major risk factor for TMD. Experimental sustained jaw clenching may provoke acute muscle tenderness, but it is not analogous to myogenous TMD pain, so such studies may not help clarify the clinical relationship between bruxism and TMD. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.