Epidemiology of Bruxism in Adults : A Systematic Review of the Literature
Epidemiology of Bruxism in Adults : A Systematic Review of the Literature
复制标题
成人磨牙症的流行病学:文献的系统回顾
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Daniele Manfredini
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daniele Manfredini
收件人：Daniele Manfredini博士Via Ingolstadt 3 54033 Marina di Carrara (MS) Italy电子邮件：daniele.manfredini@tin.it目的：对成人磨牙症患病率的文献进行系统综述。方法：系统检索医学文献，通过问卷调查、临床评估和多导睡眠图（PSG）或肌电图（EMG）记录，确定所有同行评议的英文论文，这些论文涉及一般人群水平上清醒或睡眠磨牙症的患病率评估。根据观察研究方法学评价（MORE）检查表对被评审论文进行质量评估，以识别外部和内部效度的缺陷。建立了可接受的外部效度的截止标准，以选择研究来讨论患病率数据。对于每一项纳入的研究，记录样本特征、诊断策略和磨牙症的患病率与年龄、性别和昼夜节律（如果有的话）的关系。结果：共纳入35篇文献。几个方法学问题限制了大多数研究结果的外部有效性，患病率数据提取仅在七篇论文中进行。其中，只有一篇论文的外部效度是完美的，而所有入选论文的内部效度都很低，主要是由于他们只自我报告了磨牙症的诊断，主要是基于一两个问卷项目。采用其他诊断策略（如PSG、肌电图）的研究未获得流行病学数据。两项研究评估了一般认定的“磨牙症”的患病率为8%至31.4%，两项研究调查了清醒磨牙症的患病率为22.1%至31%，三项研究发现睡眠磨牙症的患病率在调查“频繁”磨牙症的报告中更为一致（12.8%±3.1%）。磨牙活动与性别无关，在老年人中随着年龄的增长而减少。结论：本系统综述描述了磨牙症活动的可变患病率数据。由于所回顾文献的方法学质量较差，并且由于必须依赖个体对磨牙症的自我报告而存在潜在的诊断偏差，因此必须谨慎解释研究结果。中国生物医学工程学报，2013;27(2):391 - 391。doi: 10.11607 / jop.921
Correspondence to: Dr Daniele Manfredini Via Ingolstadt 3 54033 Marina di Carrara (MS) Italy Email: daniele.manfredini@tin.it Aims: To perform a systematic review of the literature dealing with the prevalence of bruxism in adult populations. Methods: A systematic search of the medical literature was performed to identify all peer-reviewed English-language papers dealing with the prevalence assessment of either awake or sleep bruxism at the general population level by the adoption of questionnaires, clinical assessments, and polysomnographic (PSG) or electromyographic (EMG) recordings. Quality assessment of the reviewed papers was performed according to the Methodological evaluation of Observational REsearch (MORE) checklist, which enables the identification of flaws in the external and internal validity. Cut-off criteria for an acceptable external validity were established to select studies for the discussion of prevalence data. For each included study, the sample features, diagnostic strategy, and prevalence of bruxism in relation to age, sex, and circadian rhythm, if available, were recorded. Results: Thirtyfive publications were included in the review. Several methodological problems limited the external validity of findings in most studies, and prevalence data extraction was performed only on seven papers. Of those, only one paper had a flawless external validity, whilst internal validity was low in all the selected papers due to their selfreported bruxism diagnosis alone, mainly based on only one or two questionnaire items. No epidemiologic data were available from studies adopting other diagnostic strategies (eg, PSG, EMG). Generically identified “bruxism” was assessed in two studies reporting an 8% to 31.4% prevalence, awake bruxism was investigated in two studies describing a 22.1% to 31% prevalence, and prevalence of sleep bruxism was found to be more consistent across the three studies investigating the report of “frequent” bruxism (12.8% ± 3.1%). Bruxism activities were found to be unrelated to sex, and a decrease with age was described in elderly people. Conclusion: The present systematic review described variable prevalence data for bruxism activities. Findings must be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the reviewed literature and to potential diagnostic bias related with having to rely on an individual’s self-report of bruxism. J OrOfac Pain 2013;27:99–110. doi: 10.11607/jop.921