Is bruxism a disorder or a behaviour? Rethinking the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism

Karen Raphael, V. Santiago, F. Lobbezoo

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Inspired by the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism (Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:2), this commentary examines its contribution and underlying assumptions for defining sleep bruxism (SB). The consensus’ parsimonious redefinition of bruxism as a behaviour is an advance, but we explore an implied question: might SB be more than behaviour? Behaviours do not inherently require clinical treatment, making the consensus-proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ inappropriate. However, diagnostic grading might be useful, if SB were considered a disorder. Therefore, to fully appreciate the contribution of the consensus statement, we first consider standards and evidence for determining whether SB is a disorder characterised by harmful dysfunction or a risk factor increasing probability of a disorder. Second, the strengths and weaknesses of the consensus statement's proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ are examined. The strongest evidence-to-date does not support SB as disorder as implied by ‘diagnosis’. Behaviour alone is not diagnosed; disorders are. Considered even as a grading system of behaviour, the proposed system is weakened by poor sensitivity of self-report for direct polysomnographic (PSG)-classified SB and poor associations between clinical judgments of SB and portable PSG; reliance on dichotomised reports; and failure to consider SB behaviour on a continuum, measurable and definable through valid behavioural observation. To date, evidence for validity of self-report or clinician report in placing SB behaviour on a continuum is lacking, raising concerns about their potential utility in any bruxism behavioural grading system, and handicapping future study of whether SB may be a useful risk factor for, or itself a disorder requiring treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)791-798
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Oral Rehabilitation
Volume43
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Sleep Bruxism
Bruxism
Consensus
Self Report

Keywords

  • bruxism
  • diagnosis
  • grinding
  • risk factor
  • sleep bruxism
  • temporomandibular disorders
  • validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Is bruxism a disorder or a behaviour? Rethinking the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism. / Raphael, Karen; Santiago, V.; Lobbezoo, F.

In: Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Vol. 43, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 791-798.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{6e3e75122fb04ac393465185de38ab9d,
title = "Is bruxism a disorder or a behaviour? Rethinking the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism",
abstract = "Inspired by the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism (Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:2), this commentary examines its contribution and underlying assumptions for defining sleep bruxism (SB). The consensus’ parsimonious redefinition of bruxism as a behaviour is an advance, but we explore an implied question: might SB be more than behaviour? Behaviours do not inherently require clinical treatment, making the consensus-proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ inappropriate. However, diagnostic grading might be useful, if SB were considered a disorder. Therefore, to fully appreciate the contribution of the consensus statement, we first consider standards and evidence for determining whether SB is a disorder characterised by harmful dysfunction or a risk factor increasing probability of a disorder. Second, the strengths and weaknesses of the consensus statement's proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ are examined. The strongest evidence-to-date does not support SB as disorder as implied by ‘diagnosis’. Behaviour alone is not diagnosed; disorders are. Considered even as a grading system of behaviour, the proposed system is weakened by poor sensitivity of self-report for direct polysomnographic (PSG)-classified SB and poor associations between clinical judgments of SB and portable PSG; reliance on dichotomised reports; and failure to consider SB behaviour on a continuum, measurable and definable through valid behavioural observation. To date, evidence for validity of self-report or clinician report in placing SB behaviour on a continuum is lacking, raising concerns about their potential utility in any bruxism behavioural grading system, and handicapping future study of whether SB may be a useful risk factor for, or itself a disorder requiring treatment.",
keywords = "bruxism, diagnosis, grinding, risk factor, sleep bruxism, temporomandibular disorders, validity",
author = "Karen Raphael and V. Santiago and F. Lobbezoo",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/joor.12413",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "791--798",
journal = "Journal of Oral Rehabilitation",
issn = "0305-182X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is bruxism a disorder or a behaviour? Rethinking the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism

AU - Raphael, Karen

AU - Santiago, V.

AU - Lobbezoo, F.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Inspired by the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism (Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:2), this commentary examines its contribution and underlying assumptions for defining sleep bruxism (SB). The consensus’ parsimonious redefinition of bruxism as a behaviour is an advance, but we explore an implied question: might SB be more than behaviour? Behaviours do not inherently require clinical treatment, making the consensus-proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ inappropriate. However, diagnostic grading might be useful, if SB were considered a disorder. Therefore, to fully appreciate the contribution of the consensus statement, we first consider standards and evidence for determining whether SB is a disorder characterised by harmful dysfunction or a risk factor increasing probability of a disorder. Second, the strengths and weaknesses of the consensus statement's proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ are examined. The strongest evidence-to-date does not support SB as disorder as implied by ‘diagnosis’. Behaviour alone is not diagnosed; disorders are. Considered even as a grading system of behaviour, the proposed system is weakened by poor sensitivity of self-report for direct polysomnographic (PSG)-classified SB and poor associations between clinical judgments of SB and portable PSG; reliance on dichotomised reports; and failure to consider SB behaviour on a continuum, measurable and definable through valid behavioural observation. To date, evidence for validity of self-report or clinician report in placing SB behaviour on a continuum is lacking, raising concerns about their potential utility in any bruxism behavioural grading system, and handicapping future study of whether SB may be a useful risk factor for, or itself a disorder requiring treatment.

AB - Inspired by the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism (Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:2), this commentary examines its contribution and underlying assumptions for defining sleep bruxism (SB). The consensus’ parsimonious redefinition of bruxism as a behaviour is an advance, but we explore an implied question: might SB be more than behaviour? Behaviours do not inherently require clinical treatment, making the consensus-proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ inappropriate. However, diagnostic grading might be useful, if SB were considered a disorder. Therefore, to fully appreciate the contribution of the consensus statement, we first consider standards and evidence for determining whether SB is a disorder characterised by harmful dysfunction or a risk factor increasing probability of a disorder. Second, the strengths and weaknesses of the consensus statement's proposed ‘diagnostic grading system’ are examined. The strongest evidence-to-date does not support SB as disorder as implied by ‘diagnosis’. Behaviour alone is not diagnosed; disorders are. Considered even as a grading system of behaviour, the proposed system is weakened by poor sensitivity of self-report for direct polysomnographic (PSG)-classified SB and poor associations between clinical judgments of SB and portable PSG; reliance on dichotomised reports; and failure to consider SB behaviour on a continuum, measurable and definable through valid behavioural observation. To date, evidence for validity of self-report or clinician report in placing SB behaviour on a continuum is lacking, raising concerns about their potential utility in any bruxism behavioural grading system, and handicapping future study of whether SB may be a useful risk factor for, or itself a disorder requiring treatment.

KW - bruxism

KW - diagnosis

KW - grinding

KW - risk factor

KW - sleep bruxism

KW - temporomandibular disorders

KW - validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84986593173&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84986593173&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/joor.12413

DO - 10.1111/joor.12413

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 27283599

AN - SCOPUS:84986593173

VL - 43

SP - 791

EP - 798

JO - Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

SN - 0305-182X

IS - 10

ER -