Occlusal Factors Are Not Related to Self-Reported Bruxism

Aims: To estimate the contribution of various occlusal features of the natural dentition that may identify self-reported bruxers compared to nonbruxers. Methods: Two age- and sex-matched groups of self-reported bruxers (n = 67) and self-reported nonbruxers (n = 75) took part in the study. For each patient, the following occlusal features were clinically assessed: retruded contact position (RCP) to intercuspal contact position (ICP) slide length (< 2 mm was considered normal), vertical overlap (< 0 mm was considered an anterior open bite; > 4 mm, a deep bite), horizontal overlap (> 4 mm was considered a large horizontal overlap), incisor dental midline discrepancy (< 2 mm was considered normal), and the presence of a unilateral posterior crossbite, mediotrusive interferences, and laterotrusive interferences. A multiple logistic regression model was used to identify the significant associations between the assessed occlusal features (independent variables) and self-reported bruxism (dependent variable). Results: Accuracy values to predict self-reported bruxism were unacceptable for all occlusal variables. The only variable remaining in the final regression model was laterotrusive interferences (P = .030). The percentage of explained variance for bruxism by the final multiple regression model was 4.6%. This model including only one occlusal factor showed low positive (58.1%) and negative predictive values (59.7%), thus showing a poor accuracy to predict the presence of self-reported bruxism (59.2%). Conclusion: This investigation suggested that the contribution of occlusion to the differentiation between bruxers and nonbruxers is negligible. This finding supports theories that advocate a much diminished role for peripheral anatomical-structural factors in the pathogenesis of bruxism.

bruxism; occlusal features; predictive value

1. Lavigne GJ, Khoury S, Abe S, Yamaguchi T, Raphael K. Bruxism physiology and pathology: An overview for clinicians. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:476–494.

2. Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. Bruxism is mainly regulated centrally, not peripherally. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1085–1091.

3. Manfredini D, Lobbezoo F. Role of psychosocial factors in the etiology of bruxism. J Orofac Pain 2009;23:153–166.

4. Lobbezoo F, Van Der Zaag J, Naeije M. Bruxism: Its multiple causes and its effects on dental implants. An update review. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:293–300.

5. McCoy G. Dental compression syndrome: A new look at an old disease. J Oral Implantol 1999;25:35–49.

6. Sari S, Sonmez H. The relationship between occlusal factors and bruxism in permanent and mixed dentition in Turkish children. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;25:191–194.

7. Sugimoto K, Yoshimi H, Sasaguri K, Sato S. Occlusion factors influencing the magnitude of sleep bruxism activity. Cranio 2011;29:127–137.

8. Hill BA. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceed Royal Soc Med 1965;58:295–300.

9. Manfredini D, Lobbezoo F. Bruxism and temporomandibular disorders. In: Manfredini D (ed). Current Concepts on Temporomandibular Disorders. Berlin: Quintessence, 2010:135–152.

10. Lobbezoo F, Rompré PH, Soucy JP, et al. Lack of associations between occlusal and cephalometric measures, side imbalance in striatal D2 receptor binding, and sleep-related oromotor activities. J Orofac Pain 2001;15:64–73.

11. Manfredini D, Landi N, Tognini F, Montagnani G, Bosco

M. Occlusal features are not a reliable predictor of bruxism. Minerva Stomatol 2004;53:231–239.

12. Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Manfredini D, Winocur E. Are bruxism and the bite causally related? J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:489–501.

13. Cox DR, Snell EJ. Analysis of binary data, ed 2. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989:20.

14. Ramfjord SP. Bruxism: A clinical and electromyographic study. J Am Dent Assoc 1961;62:21–44.

15. Kato T, Thie N, Huynh N, Miyawaki S, Lavigne GJ. Topical review: Sleep bruxism and the role of peripheral sensory influences. J Orofac Pain 2003;17:191–213.

16. Manfredini D. Integration of research into the clinical practice. In: Manfredini D (ed). Current Concepts on Temporomandibular Disorders. Berlin: Quintessence, 2010:459–468.

17. Rugh JD, Barghi N, Drago CJ. Experimental occlusal discrepancies and nocturnal bruxism. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51:548–553.

18. Shiau YY, Syu JZ. Effect of working side interferences on mandibular movement in bruxers and non-bruxers. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:145–151.

19. Yagi T, Morimoto T, Hidaka O, Masuda Y, Kobayashi M, Takada K. Adjustment of the occlusal vertical dimension in the bite-raised guinea pig. J Dent Res 2003;82:127–130.

20. Seligman DA, Pullinger AG. Analysis of occlusal variables, dental attrition, and age for distinguishing healthy controls from female patients with intracapsular temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:76–82.

21. Manfredini D, Peretta R, Guarda-Nardini L, Ferronato G. Predictive value of combined clinically diagnosed bruxism and occlusal features for TMJ pain. Cranio 2010;28: 105–113.

22. Pullinger AG, Seligman DG, Gornbein GA. A multiple logistic regression analysis of the risk and relative odds of temporomandibular disorders as a function of common occlusal features. J Dent Res 1993;72:968–979.

23. Manfredini D, Lobbezoo F. Relationship between bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review of literature from 1998 to 2008. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e26–50.

24. Koyano K, Tsukiyama Y, Ichiki R, Kuwata T. Assessment of bruxism in the clinic. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:495–508.

25. Lavigne GJ, Rompré PH, Montplaisir JY. Sleep bruxism: Validity of clinical research diagnostic criteria in a controlled polysomnographic study. J Dent Res 1996;75:546–552.