Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026
Bruxism-Related Vibrational Patterns Assessed by Joint Vibration Analysis: A Cross-Sectional Study in Patients With Temporomandibular Joint Disorder Features.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gözler Serdar, Durmaz Nurcan, Bayraktar Beril, Eyüboğlu Tan Fırat, Özcan Mutlu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bruxism involves involuntary jaw activities like clenching or grinding, linked to changes in temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) vibrations, but its independent role is debated. This study used joint vibration analysis (JVA), a non-invasive method, to analyse TMJ vibrations in individuals with potential bruxism.
METHODS: Adults (N = 195), aged 18-45, were included in this retrospective study divided into two groups: those with possible bruxism and TMD features (n = 175) and asymptomatic controls (n = 20). The classification was based on clinical examination and self-report, without differentiating sleep and awake bruxism. TMJ function was evaluated with JVA, assessing peak frequency, median frequency, vibration amplitude, and vibrational energy. Statistical analyses included independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman correlation and regression (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Participants with possible bruxism showed higher peak frequency (42.3 ± 5.6 Hz vs. 38.7 ± 4.2 Hz, p = 0.023), median frequency (28.9 ± 4.8 Hz vs. 25.6 ± 3.9 Hz, p = 0.015), vibration amplitude (6.5 ± 1.2 mm/s vs. 4.9 ± 1.0 mm/s, p < 0.001) and vibrational energy (12.7 ± 3.4 μJ vs. 9.2 ± 2.8 μJ, p < 0.001) than controls. Bruxism severity correlated with higher JVA parameters, explaining about 35% of the variance in vibration amplitude and 30% in energy (p < 0.001). Effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (Cohen's d = 0.73-1.35). These results reflect patterns in a mixed bruxism-TMD group, not bruxism-specific effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings show higher TMJ vibrational parameters in those possibly bruxing, many with TMD features. JVA helps characterise TMJ patterns but should not be used alone for bruxism diagnosis without imaging or TMD controls.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov.tr: NCT07070141.
METHODS: Adults (N = 195), aged 18-45, were included in this retrospective study divided into two groups: those with possible bruxism and TMD features (n = 175) and asymptomatic controls (n = 20). The classification was based on clinical examination and self-report, without differentiating sleep and awake bruxism. TMJ function was evaluated with JVA, assessing peak frequency, median frequency, vibration amplitude, and vibrational energy. Statistical analyses included independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman correlation and regression (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Participants with possible bruxism showed higher peak frequency (42.3 ± 5.6 Hz vs. 38.7 ± 4.2 Hz, p = 0.023), median frequency (28.9 ± 4.8 Hz vs. 25.6 ± 3.9 Hz, p = 0.015), vibration amplitude (6.5 ± 1.2 mm/s vs. 4.9 ± 1.0 mm/s, p < 0.001) and vibrational energy (12.7 ± 3.4 μJ vs. 9.2 ± 2.8 μJ, p < 0.001) than controls. Bruxism severity correlated with higher JVA parameters, explaining about 35% of the variance in vibration amplitude and 30% in energy (p < 0.001). Effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (Cohen's d = 0.73-1.35). These results reflect patterns in a mixed bruxism-TMD group, not bruxism-specific effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings show higher TMJ vibrational parameters in those possibly bruxing, many with TMD features. JVA helps characterise TMJ patterns but should not be used alone for bruxism diagnosis without imaging or TMD controls.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov.tr: NCT07070141.