Temporomandibular Disorder Patients’ Illness Beliefs and Self-efficacy Related to Bruxism

Aims: To examine temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients’ illness beliefs and self-efficacy in relation to bruxism, and to examine whether these beliefs are related to the severity of patients’ self-perceived bruxing behavior. Methods: A total of 504 TMD patients (75% women; mean age ± SD: 40.7 ± 14.6 years), referred to the TMD Clinic of the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, completed a battery of questionnaires, of which one inquired about the frequency of oral parafunctional behaviors, including bruxism (clenching and grinding). Patients’ illness beliefs were assessed with a question about the perceived causal relationship between bruxism and TMD pain; patients’ self-efficacy was assessed with questions about the general possibility of reducing oral parafunctional behaviors and patients’ own appraisal of their capability to accomplish this. Results: Sleep bruxism or awake bruxism was attributed by 66.7% and 53.8% of the patients, respectively, as a cause of TMD pain; 89.9% believed that oral parafunctions could be reduced, and 92.5% believed themselves capable of doing so. The higher a patient’s bruxism frequency, the more bruxism was believed to be the cause of TMD pain (Spearman’s rho 0.77 and 0.71, P < .001) and the more pessimistic the self-efficacy beliefs were about the reducibility of oral parafunctions (Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 19.91, df = 2, P < .001; and Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 7.15, df = 2, P = .028). Conclusion: Most TMD patients believe in the harmfulness of bruxism and the possibility of reducing this behavior. Bruxism frequency is associated with illness beliefs and self-efficacy.

bruxism;illness beliefs;oral parafunctions;self-efficacy;temporomandibular disorders

1. Dworkin S, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–355.

2. Lobbezoo F, Lavigne GJ. Do bruxism and temporomandibular disorders have a cause-and-effect relationship?J Orofac Pain 1997;11:15–23.

3. Svensson P, Jadidi F, Baad-Hansen L, Sessle BJ. Relationships between craniofacial pain and bruxism. J Oral Rehab 2008;35:524–547.

4. Lobbezoo F, van der Zaag J, van Selms MKA, Hamburger HL, Naeije M. Principles for the management of bruxism. J Oral Rehab 2008;35:7:509–523.

5. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal E. Illness cognition: Using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognit Ther Res 1992;16:143–146.

6. Orbell S, Johnston M, Rowley D, Espley A, Davey P. Cognitive representations of illness and functional and affective adjustment following surgery for osteoarthritis. Soc Sci Med 1998;43:93–102.

7. Bandura A. Self-efficacy, The Exercise of Control. New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1997.

8. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of be-havioral change. Psychol Rev 1977;84:191–215.

9. Meulen MJ van der, Lobbezoo F, Aartman IHA, Naeije M. Self-reported oral parafunctions and pain intensity in temporomandibular disorder patients. J Orofac Pain 2006; 20:31–36.

10. Markiewicz MR, Ohrbach R, McCall WD Jr. Oral be-haviors checklist: Reliability of performance in targeted waking-state behaviors. J Orofac Pain 2006;20:306–316.

11. Hamilton JC, Shuminsky TR. Self-awareness mediates the relationship between serial position and item reliability. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59:1301–1307.

12. Knowles ES, Byers B. Reliability shifts in measurement reactivity: Driven by content engagement or self-engagement? J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:1080–1090.

13. Shutty MS, DeGood DE, Tuttle DH. Chronic pain patients’ beliefs about their pain and treatment outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:128–132.

14. Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health 1998;13:623–649.