4.4 Article

Sleep bruxism in patients with sleep-disordered breathing

Journal

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 889-896

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9969(00)00044-3

Keywords

obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA); sleep bruxism; rhythmic jaw movements (RJM); masseter contraction (MC); arousal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim was to test the hypothesis of a direct association between sleep-disordered breathing and sleep bruxism. The frequency of masseter contraction (MC) episodes and rhythmic jaw movements (RJM) was measured in patients with mild and moderate obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). The diagnosis of sleep bruxism was made from a combination of questionnaire, clinical observation and all-night polysomnographic recording which included masseter electromyography. A total of 21 patients (19 males/two females, mean age 40.0 years +/- 9.2 SD) were randomly selected from a provisional diagnosis of snoring and OSA by a sleep physician. In the patients with mild OSA [n = 11, mean apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) = 8.0 +/- 4.1 SD, body mass index (BMI) = 29.1 +/- 5.0], the diagnosis of sleep bruxism was made in six out of 11 patients (54%); similarly, four out of 10 patients (40%) with moderate OSA (n = 10, mean AHI = 34.7 +/- 19.1, BMI = 30.6 +/- 5.0) were identified as bruxists. Although the combination of clinical, subjective estimation and nocturnal electromyographic recording of masseter muscle might provide a more solid base for the diagnosis of sleep bruxism, the result is biased by the variation in the bruxing activity. MC episodes were associated with the termination of apnoea or hypopnoea episodes in only 3.5% of the mild group and 14.4% of the moderate group (p < 0.05). It appears that sleep bruxism is rarely directly associated with apnoeic events, but is rather related to the disturbed sleep of OSA patients. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available