4.1 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of sleep bruxism and wake-time tooth clenching in a 7-to 17-yr-old population

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 119, Issue 5, Pages 386-394

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00846.x

Keywords

headache; sleep bruxism; sleep disorders; temporomandibular disorders; tooth clenching

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP 11701]
  2. Ministere de l'Education, du Loisir et du Sport du Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sleep-related bruxism (SB) and wake-time tooth clenching (TC) have been associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), headache, and sleep and behavioral complaints. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and risk factors of these signs and symptoms in a 7- to 17-yr-old population (n = 604) seeking orthodontic treatment. Data were collected by questionnaire and by a clinical examination assessing craniofacial morphology and dental status. Sleep-related bruxism was reported by 15% of the population and TC was reported by 12.4%. The SB group (n = 58) was mainly composed of children (67.3% were <= 12 yr of age) and the TC group (n = 42) was mainly composed of adolescents (78.6% were 13 yr of age). The craniofacial morphology of over 60% of SB subjects was dental class II and 28.1% were a brachyfacial type. Compared with controls (n = 220), SB subjects were more at risk of experiencing jaw muscle fatigue [adjusted OR (AOR) = 10.5], headache (AOR = 4.3), and loud breathing during sleep (AOR = 3.1). Compared with controls, TC subjects reported more temporomandibular joint clicking (AOR = 5), jaw muscle fatigue (AOR = 13.5), and several sleep and behavioral complaints. Sleep- and wake-time parafunctions are frequently associated with signs and symptoms suggestive of TMDs, and with sleep and behavioral problems. Their clinical assessment during the planning of orthodontic treatment is recommended.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available