OBJECTIVE: In line with a similar recent proposal for sleep bruxism (SB), defining clinically oriented research routes to implement knowledge on awake bruxism (AB) metrics is important for an enhanced comprehension of the full bruxism spectrum, i.e. better assessment and more efficient management.

METHODS: We summarised current strategies for AB assessment and proposed a research route for improving its metrics.

RESULTS: Most of the literature focuses on bruxism in general or SB in particular, whilst knowledge on AB is generally fragmental. Assessment can be based on non-instrumental or instrumental approaches. The former include self-report (questionnaires, oral history) and clinical examination, whilst the latter include electromyography (EMG) of jaw muscles during wakefulness as well as the technology-enhanced ecological momentary assesment (EMA). Phenotyping of different AB activities should be the target of a research task force. In the absence of available data on the frequency and intensity of wake-time bruxism-type masticatory muscle activity, any speculation about the identification of thresholds and criteria to identify bruxers is premature. Research routes in the field must focus on the improvement of data reliability and validity.

CONCLUSIONS: Probing deeper into the study of AB metrics is a fundamental step to assist clinicians in preventing and managing the putative consequences at the individual level. The present manuscript proposes some possible research routes to advance current knowledge. At different levels, instrumentally-based and subject-based information must be gathered in a universally accepted standardized approach.

Awake bruxism (AB) is differentiated from sleep bruxism (SB) by the differences in etiology, comorbidities, and consequences related to the different spectrum of muscle activities exerted in relation to the different circadian manifestations. Furthermore, less literature data are available on AB than on SB. The introduction of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) strategies has allowed for collecting valuable data on the frequency of the different activities reported by an individual in his/her natural environment. This strategy has been further improved with the recent use of smartphone technologies. Recent studies have described an average frequency of AB behaviors, within the range of 23-40% for otherwise healthy young adults. An association between AB and some psychological traits has emerged, and the findings have indicated that patients with musculoskeletal symptoms (e.g., temporomandibular joint and/or muscle pain, muscle stiffness, and fatigue) report higher AB frequencies. Preliminary data suggest that muscle bracing and teeth contact are the most commonly reported behaviors, while teeth clenching is much less frequently reported than commonly believed previously. Report of teeth grinding during wakefulness is almost absent. This paper has critically reviewed the currently available approaches for the assessment of AB. In addition, some future perspectives and suggestions for further research have been provided.

Background: The recent introduction of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) smartphone-based strategies has allowed achieving some interesting data on the frequency of different awake bruxism (AB) behaviors reported by an individual in the natural environment. Objective: The present paper aims to review the literature on the reported frequency of AB based on data gathered via smartphone EMA technology. Methods: On September 2022, a systematic search in the Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify all peer-reviewed English-language studies assessing awake bruxism behaviors using a smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment. The selected articles were assessed independently by two authors according to a structured reading of the articles’ format (PICO). Results: A literature search, for which the search terms “Awake Bruxism” and “Ecological Momentary Assessment” were used, identified 15 articles. Of them, eight fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results of seven studies using the same smartphone-based app reported a frequency of AB behaviors in the range between 28.3 and 40% over one week, while another investigation adopted a different smartphone-based EMA approach via WhatsApp using a web-based survey program and reported an AB frequency of 58.6%. Most included studies were based on convenience samples with limited age range, highlighting the need for more studies on other population samples. Conclusions: Despite the methodological limits, the results of the reviewed studies provide a standpoint for comparison for future studies on the epidemiology of awake bruxism behaviors.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, a smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) approach for assessing awake bruxism (AB) has attracted growing interest, both in clinical and research settings. The present study was designed to investigate subjects' experience using an EMA-based smartphone application to detect factors that could hamper or facilitate its use for clinical and research purposes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) pain (14 males, 18 females; mean age 28.3 ± 12.1 years) were recruited at the Orofacial Pain Unit of the University of Siena, Siena, Italy. They were monitored for one week to collect data on their AB behaviors. Time investment, feelings, encountered difficulties, and reasons for not using the app were assessed in a diary with 5-point Likert scales. Descriptive analysis of quantitative data was assessed, and content analysis of textual data was performed.

RESULTS: Quantitative data showed a good experience with the app (median of 4). The main motivation to use the EMA-based smartphone application was to gain insight into their own AB behaviours. The most negative experience was the short time window available to answer to the alert.

CONCLUSION: The EMA-based smartphone application was well accepted for multiple day evaluation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results open up important clinical scenarios for AB evaluation as well as the possibility to carry out large-scale studies on general population samples and/or on selected subpopulations.

AIMS: To combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method in order to develop a quality-assessment tool for experimental bruxism studies in systematic reviews. METHODS: Tool development comprised five steps: (1) preliminary decisions, (2) item generation, (3) face-validity assessment, (4) reliability and discriminitive validity assessment, and (5) instrument refinement. The kappa value and phi-coefficient were calculated to assess inter-observer reliability and discriminative ability, respectively. RESULTS: Following preliminary decisions and a literature review, a list of 52 items to be considered for inclusion in the tool was compiled. Eleven experts were invited to join a Delphi panel and 10 accepted. Four Delphi rounds reduced the preliminary tool-Quality-Assessment Tool for Experimental Bruxism Studies (Qu-ATEBS)- to 8 items: study aim, study sample, control condition or group, study design, experimental bruxism task, statistics, interpretation of results, and conflict of interest statement. Consensus among the Delphi panelists yielded good face validity. Inter-observer reliability was acceptable (k = 0.77). Discriminative validity was excellent (phi coefficient 1.0; P < .01). During refinement, 1 item (no. 8) was removed. CONCLUSION: Qu-ATEBS, the seven-item evidence-based quality assessment tool developed here for use in systematic reviews of experimental bruxism studies, exhibits face validity, excellent discriminative validity, and acceptable inter-observer reliability. Development of quality assessment tools for many other topics in the orofacial pain literature is needed and may follow the described procedure.

Self-management (SM) programmes are commonly used for initial treatment of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The programmes described in the literature, however, vary widely with no consistency in terminology used, components of care or their definitions. The aims of this study were therefore to construct an operationalised definition of self-management appropriate for the treatment of patients with TMD, identify the components of that self-management currently being used and create sufficiently clear and non-overlapping standardised definitions for each of those components. A four-round Delphi process with eleven international experts in the field of TMD was conducted to achieve these aims. In the first round, the participants agreed upon six principal concepts of self-management. In the remaining three rounds, consensus was achieved upon the definition and the six components of self-management. The main components identified and agreed upon by the participants to constitute the core of a SM programme for TMD were as follows: education; jaw exercises; massage; thermal therapy; dietary advice and nutrition; and parafunctional behaviour identification, monitoring and avoidance. This Delphi process has established the principal concepts of self-management, and a standardised definition has been agreed with the following components for use in clinical practice: education; self-exercise; self-massage; thermal therapy; dietary advice and nutrition; and parafunctional behaviour identification, monitoring and avoidance. The consensus-derived concepts, definitions and components of SM offer a starting point for further research to advance the evidence base for, and clinical utility of, TMD SM.

Background: Despite advances in temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) diagnosis, the diagnostic process continues to be problematic in non-specialist settings.

Objective: To complete a Delphi process to shorten the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) to a brief DC/TMD (bDC/TMD) for expedient clinical diagnosis and initial management.

Methods: An international Delphi panel was created with 23 clinicians representing major specialities, general dentistry and related fields. The process comprised a full day workshop, seven virtual meetings, six rounds of electronic discussion and finally an open consultation at a virtual international symposium.

Results: Within the physical axis (Axis 1), the self-report Symptom Questionnaire of the DC/TMD did not require shortening from 14 items for the bDC/TMD. The compulsory use of the TMD pain screener was removed reducing the total number of Axis 1 items by 18%. The DC/TMD Axis 1 10-section examination protocol (25 movements, up to 12 sets of bilateral palpations) was reduced to four sections in the bDC/TMD protocol involving three movements and three sets of palpations. Axis I then resulted in two groups of diagnoses: painful TMD (inclusive of secondary headache), and common joint-related TMD with functional implications. The psychosocial axis (Axis 2) was shortened to an ultra-brief 11 item assessment.

Conclusion: The bDC/TMD represents a substantially reduced and likely expedited method to establish (grouping) diagnoses in TMDs. This may provide greater utility for settings requiring less granular diagnoses for the implementation of initial treatment, for example non-specialist general dental practice.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for use in adults is in use worldwide. Until now, no version of this instrument for use in adolescents has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of the adult version of DC/TMD that are appropriate for use with adolescents in clinical and research settings.

METHODS: International experts in TMDs and experts in pain psychology participated in a Delphi process to identify ways of adapting the DC/TMD protocol for physical and psychosocial assessment of adolescents.

RESULTS: The proposed adaptation defines adolescence as ages 10-19 years. Changes in the physical diagnosis (Axis I) include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding two general health questionnaires, one for the adolescent patient and one for their caregivers, and (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire. Changes in the psychosocial assessment (Axis II) include (i) adapting the language of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents, (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessment that have been validated for adolescents, and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophizing and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in adolescents.

CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II for adolescents, is appropriate to use in clinical and research settings. This adapted first version for adolescents includes changes in Axis I and Axis II requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations of the comprehensive and short-form to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

To investigate whether the location, area and frequency of referred sensations occurring during palpation of the masseter muscle can be influenced by application of a conditioning painful stimulus to the temporalis muscle. Thirty healthy participants were included in this cross-over study, performed in two sessions with > 48 h in between. At each session, palpation of the masseter muscle was performed before and after 0.2 ml of glutamate (1 mol/L) or isotonic saline (control) were injected into the anterior portion of the temporalis muscle. Palpation of the masseter muscle was done using four different forces (0.5 kg, 1 kg, 2 kg and 4 kg). Participants rated the perceived intensity of the palpation and any referred sensations on a 0-50-100 numeric rating scale, the perceived pain intensity following the injections on an electronic visual analogue scale and drew any referred sensations they experienced. No difference in referred sensations location, area and frequency was shown r during palpation either before or after injections (P > 0.05). A moderate correlation was found between perceived sensation scores and referred sensations intensity for the temporalis muscle following glutamate injection (r = 0.407, P < 0.05). Moreover, significantly more participants reported referred sensations for glutamate injections into the temporalis muscle when compared to isotonic saline (P < 0.05). Finally, a significant decrease in the perceived intensity of palpation of the masseter muscle was seen after glutamate injection in the temporalis muscle (P < 0.05). In the current study, location, area and frequency of referred sensations following mechanical stimulation of the masseter muscle were not altered by the application of a painful stimulus to the temporalis muscle. In addition, there seems to be a positive relationship between painful stimuli and referred sensations frequency and intensity elicited from the temporalis muscle.

Although a fluctuating pattern of orofacial pain across the life span has been proposed, data on its natural course is lacking. The longitudinal course of orofacial pain in the general population was evaluated using data from routine dental check-ups at all Public Dental Health services in Västerbotten, Sweden. In a large population sample, two screening questions were used to identify individuals with pain once a week or more in the orofacial area. Incidence and longitudinal course of orofacial pain were evaluated using annual data for 2010-2017. To evaluate predictors for orofacial pain remaining over time, individuals who reported pain on at least two consecutive dental check-ups were considered persistent. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze the prevalence, accounting for repeated observations on the same individuals. In total, 180,308 individuals (equal gender distribution) were examined in 525,707 dental check-ups. More women than men reported orofacial pain (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.48-2.68), and there was a significant increase in the prevalence of reported pain from 2010 to 2017 in both women and men. Longitudinal data for 135,800 individuals were available for incidence analysis. Women were at higher risk of both developing orofacial pain (IRR 2.37; 95% CI 2.25-2.50) and reporting pain in consecutive check-ups (IRR 2.56, 95% CI 2.29-2.87). In the northern Swedish population studied, the prevalence of orofacial pain increases over time and more so in women, thus indicating increasing differences in gender for orofacial pain.

As pain cannot be measured objectively, the use of patient reported outcomes (PROs), and specifically dental PROs (dPROs), is essential for adequate assessment and management of the patient with orofacial pain. For orofacial pain conditions, some of the suitable PROs are specific to dentistry and hence can be labelled dPROs, whereas others are not. There is also a need to understand which outcomes and domains are most relevant to the patient with pain complaints within the context of the biopsychosocial model. Acute pain in the orofacial area is most often related to toothache, whereas the most common chronic orofacial pain are temporomandibular disorders. Other chronic pains in the orofacial area include neuropathic pain and unknown or idiopathic pain. PROs have been fundamental in the development of both screening procedures and diagnostic criteria in temporomandibular disorders. PROs are now often a prerequisite for the most common temporomandibular disorder pain diagnoses. Furthermore, PROs form the basis for decision-making with regard to treatment, prognostics, and referrals. Future areas of development include the standardized use of PROs in the screening and diagnostics of the less common orofacial pain conditions, together with development of core outcomes sets and standardized protocols for the use of PROs in evaluation of treatment including efficacy, compliance, adherence, and side-effects.

Orofacial pain and joint-related dysfunction can negatively affect daily jaw function. A common cause for limitations in jaw movements is joint-related dysfunction such as various forms of catching and locking. However, knowledge is limited regarding the development and natural course of joint-related jaw dysfunction and its relationship to the onset and course of orofacial pain. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the incidence, prevalence, and gender differences in jaw catching/locking over time and in relation to orofacial pain in the general population. Data from 3 validated screening questions on orofacial pain and jaw catching/locking were collected from all routine dental checkups in the Public Dental Health Services in Västerbotten, Sweden, from 2010 to 2017. Logistic generalized estimating equation was used to account for repeated observations and Poisson regression for incidence analysis. In total, 180,308 individuals (aged 5–104 y) were screened in 525,707 dental checkups. In 2010, based on 37,647 individuals, the prevalence of self-reported catching/locking was higher in women than in men (3.2% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83–2.43), and this relationship and magnitude remained similar throughout the study period. The annual incidence rate was 1.1% in women and 0.5% in men. Women were at a higher risk than men for reporting both first onset (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.29; 95% CI, 2.11–2.49) and persistent (IRR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.04–2.63) catching/locking. For the onset subcohort (n = 135,801), an independent onset of orofacial pain or jaw catching/locking exclusively was reported by 84.1%, whereas a concurrent onset was reported by 13.4%. Our findings of higher incidence, prevalence, and persistence in women than in men indicate that the gender differences seen for orofacial pain are evident also for jaw catching/locking. The findings also suggest independent onset of self-reported catching/locking and orofacial pain, which reinforces the pathophysiological differences between these conditions.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are common and therefore managed by dentists on a daily basis. However, patients with TMD consistently go undetected and therefore untreated in dentistry. The reasons for these shortcomings have not been fully explored, specifically with regard to patients' perspectives. Therefore, this study aimed to explore patients' experiences of TMD and related treatment, with special focus on the experiences of having TMD, factors related to seeking care, and perspectives on received treatment.

METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit adult patients at the Public Dental Health services (PDHS) in the Region of Västerbotten, Sweden, during 2019. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis. Sixteen patients were interviewed (ten women and six men, 20-65 years). The interviews probed the patients' perspectives of having TMD, seeking care, and receiving treatment. All participants were also examined according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) and qualified for at least one DC/TMD diagnosis.

RESULTS: The data analysis led to the main theme Seeking care when the situation becomes untenable, but dental care fails to meet all needs. The patients expressed worry and social discomfort because of the symptoms but still strived to have an as normal daily life as possible. However, severe symptoms and associated consequences compelled them to seek professional help. Experiences of distrust together with challenges to access the PDHS were identified and related to the patients' unfulfilled expectations.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients' reported experiences indicate that receiving timely and appropriate care is more of an unfulfilled expectation than the current state of management of patients with TMD in dentistry.

Management of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) appears to be more challenging than for other dental conditions. This study aimed to explore the decision-making process in TMD management, and thereby to conceptualize the decision-making process in dentistry. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2018 and 2019 with a purposive sample of 22 general dental practitioners from the Public Dental Healthcare Services and private practices in the Region of Västerbotten, Northern Sweden. The interviews were analysed using the Grounded Theory approach of Charmaz. Data analysis resulted in the core category 'Combining own competence and others' expectations in the desire to do the right thing'. The dentists showed interest in and a desire to apply professional knowledge, but also reflected on challenges and complexity in the decision-making process for TMD. The challenges were primarily related to organisational factors and lack of self-confidence. This identifies a need for re-organisation of daily clinical management in dentistry, and a need for more postgraduate training to improve self-confidence. The complexity of the decision-making process for TMD makes the study findings applicable in other dental situations.

Background Bruxism may involve bracing and thrusting of the mandible, in addition to clenching or grinding of the teeth. It is unclear how bracing and thrusting may contribute to potential musculoskeletal symptoms associated with bruxism. Objective To examine the effect of experimental bracing and thrusting of the mandible on the development of musculoskeletal symptoms in healthy volunteers. Methods Thirty healthy volunteers performed six trials of 5 min of repeated bracing and thrusting of the mandible. Bracing involved forcefully maintaining maximum protruded position (5 s with 1 s rest in between), whereas thrusting involved forcefully moving the mandible in a forward direction and back (1 Hz). The participants rated pain, unpleasantness, soreness, fatigue, tension, stiffness, stress and headache on 10-cm visual analogue scales (VAS) before, immediately and 24 h after the tasks. Pain drawings were obtained and maximum voluntary protrusive force (MVPF) was determined before and after the tasks. The outcome parameters for each task were compared between the time points. Results There was a significant increase in the VAS scores (2-4/10) of pain, unpleasantness, soreness, fatigue, tension, stiffness and stress immediately following the tasks compared to baseline and 24 h after the tasks (p < .008). Pain was frequently reported in masseter muscles. MVPF values were significantly higher immediately (p < .001) and 24 h after thrusting (p < .001) and bracing (p = .012) tasks compared to the baseline. Conclusions Experimental bracing and thrusting of the mandible evoked transient, mild-to-moderate levels of muscle pain, fatigue, tension and stiffness and increased unpleasantness and stress scores in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: To investigate inflammatory mediator levels in TMJ synovial fluid (SF) and blood and to investigate clinical TMJ symptoms in relation to general and TMJ symptom duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS: Examination of 80 TMJs (68 patients; median age 55 years; 85% women) included the following variables: TMJ pain at rest, maximum mouth opening, and palpation; jaw movement capacity; number of painful movements; crepitus; and degree of anterior open bite. Levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), TNF soluble receptor II, interleukin 1β, IL-1 receptor antagonist, IL-1 soluble receptor II, and serotonin in TMJ SF and blood; systemic disease activity; and duration of general and TMJ symptoms were assessed. General symptom duration ≤ 2 years was considered early RA.

RESULTS: TMJ symptoms predominantly developed within 5 years following general symptom onset. Logistic regression analysis showed that number of involved joints, general pain, maximum mouth opening, anterior open bite, and TNF plasma levels combined explained 46% of the distinction between early and established RA. Furthermore, TMJ pain at rest and maximum mouth opening, contralateral laterotrusion, painful movements, crepitus, and SF TNF levels combined explained 35% of the distinction. In these analyses, higher general pain and maximum mouth opening, TMJ pain on maximum mouth opening, and crepitus were associated with early RA.

CONCLUSION: This study indicates that TMJ pain and crepitus in RA usually occur within 2 years following general symptom onset. Pain-related dysfunction and structural changes develop with time. TNF in plasma and TMJ SF are associated with this development. This makes early (clinical) recognition of pain and inflammation important, enabling early treatment to minimize later irreversible damage.

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of corticosteroid injections in the painful temporomandibular joint (TMJ) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in relation to systemic inflammatory activity. Method: Examination of 35 patients (median age 54 years; 89% female) included maximum mouth opening capacity, degree of anterior open bite (AOB), TMJ pain intensity at rest, and crepitus. Serum levels of rheumatoid factor (RF), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), serotonin, and plasma levels of interleukine-1 beta (IL-1 beta) were determined. Out of the 70 examined joints, 53 joints received a corticosteroid (methylprednisolone) injection after the clinical examination at baseline (T0). The examination was repeated for all patients at T1 (median 3.1 weeks after T0), and for 21 patients at T2 (median 6.3 weeks after T1), of whom 20 patients received a second injection at T1. Results: Maximum mouth opening capacity significantly increased, and TMJ pain intensity significantly decreased between T0 and T1, but these improvements were no longer present at T2. No differences were found in AOB between the time points. Of the joints that received an injection at T0, 19 joints had pretreatment crepitus, which resolved in eight joints at T1. No correlations were found between the change in mouth opening capacity or TMJ pain intensity and ESR, CRP, serotonin, or IL-1 beta. Conclusions: Methylprednisolone injections in the TMJ alleviate pain and improve mouth opening capacity for approximately 3 weeks, allowing patients to perform jaw exercises during this timeframe of temporary relief. It thus seems useful for the short-term management of TMJ involvement in RA.

A recent report from the European Sleep Research Society's task force "Beyond AHI" discussed an issue that has been a long-term subject of debate - what are the best metrics for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) diagnosis and treatment outcome assessments? In a similar way, sleep bruxism (SB) metrics have also been a recurrent issue for >30 years and there is still uncertainty in dentistry regarding their optimisation and clinical relevance. SB can occur alone or with comorbidities such as OSA, gastroesophageal reflux disorder, insomnia, headache, orofacial pain, periodic limb movement, rapid eye movement behaviour disorder, and sleep epilepsy. Classically, the diagnosis of SB is based on the patient's dental and medical history and clinical manifestations; electromyography is used in research and for complex cases. The emergence of new technologies, such as sensors and artificial intelligence, has opened new opportunities. The main objective of the present review is to stimulate the creation of a collaborative taskforce on SB metrics. Several examples are available in sleep medicine. The development of more homogenised metrics could improve the accuracy and refinement of SB assessment, while moving forward toward a personalised approach. It is time to develop SB metrics that are relevant to clinical outcomes and benefit patients who suffer from one or more possible negative consequences of SB.

The World Health Organization recently adopted a historic resolution (WHA74.5) on the urgent need for global oral health improvement. This resolution is particularly relevant in the perspective of the high prevalence of untreated oral diseases. However, one important aspect has been mentioned only in passing, namely that poor oral health often leads to orofacial pain, which is the most common reason for emergency dental visits worldwide. Therefore, an evidence-based decision-making process on oral health should include data related to orofacial pain complaints. To that end, the availability of reliable and valid assessment tools of orofacial pain and related treatment outcomes is essential. INfORM (International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology) of the International Association for Dental Research has been one of the driving forces behind the development and implementation of comprehensive sets of tools for such assessments. However, as a prerequisite for the desired global implementation, reliable and valid tools that are also brief, easy to translate, and culturally adaptable need to be further developed and tested. Some of the groundwork to facilitate this process has already been carried out. In addition, a working group within INfORM has developed a short clinical assessment tool for orofacial pain diagnostics that is near completion and will soon be ready for dissemination. Ultimately, reliable and valid orofacial pain assessment is a necessary step toward the development and implementation of appropriate "best buy" interventions that address this major driver of need for oral health care worldwide.

Background: Bruxism is a jaw-muscle activity characterized by teeth grinding and clenching. While many of its negative consequences (e.g., jaw-muscle pain, tooth fractures) are of particular interest to dentists, new insights underline the need for physicians to be knowledgeable about bruxism. In order to facilitate transfer of knowledge across disciplines, our objective was to assess what top-ranking medical journals have published on bruxism. Besides, we tested the insights described there against current science regarding the definition, assessment, epidemiology, etiology, consequences, comorbidities, and management of bruxism.

Results: In the past century, the four top-ranking medical journals have provided their readership with various bits and pieces of information on bruxism. While some of these insights have withstood the test of time, others are somewhat outdated. Further, the identified publications provide an incomplete picture of what physicians should know. The present article helps reduce this knowledge gap.

Conclusion: The role of the physician with regard to bruxism focuses mainly on its assessment and management, while insight into risk factors and comorbid conditions of bruxism is essential to high-level patient care. It is hoped that this article will contribute to improve the long-needed interdisciplinary collaboration between physicians and dentists regarding the assessment and management of bruxing patients.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular pain and jaw dysfunction can have a negative effect on daily life, but these conditions are not well recognized in the health care systems. The general aim was to examine the cross-sectional prevalence of frequent temporomandibular pain and jaw dysfunction in men and women across the lifespan. METHODS: The analysis was based on data from 137,718 individuals (mean age 35 years, SD 22.7) who answered three questions (3Q/TMD) included in the digital health declaration in the Public Dental Health care in the county of Västerbotten, Sweden; Q1: 'Do you have pain in your temple, face, jaw or jaw joint once a week or more?'; Q2: 'Does it hurt once a week or more when you open your mouth or chew?'; and Q3: 'Does your jaw lock or become stuck once a week or more?' RESULTS: The prevalence of frequent temporomandibular pain (Q1) was 5.2% among women and 1.8% among men (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of frequent pain on jaw movement (Q2) was 2.5% among women and 0.9% among men (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of frequent locking of the jaw (Q3) was 2.7% among women and 1.2% among men (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the cross-sectional prevalence of temporomandibular pain and jaw dysfunction varies during the lifespan. For men and women, respectively, symptoms increase during adolescence, peak in middle age and then gradually diminish. The prevalence of these symptoms is significantly higher among women except from the first and last decades of a 100-year lifespan.

ObjectivesTemporomandibular disorders (TMDs) is a collective term for pain and functional disturbances related to the jaw muscles and the temporomandibular joint. In contrast to screening for orofacial pain, knowledge is limited on the association between patient-reported outcomes and screening for joint-related functional jaw disturbances. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the association between a screening question for functional jaw disturbances, and disease-specific out-come measures for functional jaw limitations and oral behaviors.MethodsThis study included 299 individuals (201 women; 20-69 years, median 37.0) in a general population sample from Vasterbotten, Northern Sweden in 2014. A single screening question for functional jaw disturbances "Does your jaw lock or become stuck once a week or more?" was used to categorize individuals as cases or controls. Patient-reported outcomes on functional jaw disturbances were assessed with the 20-item jaw functional limitation scale (JFLS-20) and oral behaviors with the 21-item Oral Behaviors Checklist (OBC-21).ResultsThe strongest predictive probability to have a positive screening outcome was functional jaw limitations related to mobility (AUC(boot) = 0.78, 95 CI:0.71-0.86, P < .001), followed by limitations related to communication (AUC(boot) = 0.74, 95 CI:0.63-0.80, P < .001) and mastication (AUC(boot) = 0.73, 95 CI:0.66-0.81, P < .001). The frequency of oral behaviors was not significantly associated with a positive screening outcome (AUC(boot) = 0.65, 95 CI:0.55-0.72, P = .223).ConclusionsSelf-reported functional limitations, but not oral behaviors, are strongly associated with a single screening question for frequent functional jaw disturbances. This finding provides support for incorporating a question on jaw catching/locking once a week or more in screening instruments for TMDs.

Patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) seem to go undetected and not adequately managed within dentistry. To identify these patients, three screening questions (3Q/TMD) have been introduced within dentistry in parts of Sweden. It is not known whether 3Q/TMD affects the clinical decision-making for these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of 3Q/TMD on the clinical decision-making and to analyse whether gender, age and the fee system the individual was assigned to were related to prescribed TMD treatment. This cohort study was carried out within the Public Dental Health service in Vasterbotten, Sweden. As part of the routine dental check-up, a health declaration including 3Q/TMD was completed. The study population was randomly selected based on their 3Q/TMD answers. In total, 300 individuals with an affirmative answer to any of the 3Q/TMD, and 500 individuals with all negative answers were selected. The 3Q/TMD includes questions on weekly jaw-face-temple pain (Q1), pain on function (Q2) and catching/locking of the jaw (Q3). The 3Q/TMD was analysed in relation to prescribed treatment assessed from dental records. There was significantly more treatment performed or recommended for 3Q-positives (215%), compared to 3Q-negatives (22%) (P < 0001). The odds ratio for TMD-related treatment for 3Q-positives versus 3Q-negatives was 121 (95% CI: 63-234). Although affirmative answers to the 3Q/TMD was related to TMD treatment, the majority of individuals with a screen positive still did not, according to dental records, receive assessment or treatment. Further studies are needed to better understand the clinical decision-making process for patients with TMD.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of three screening questions (3Q/TMD) in relation to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), in a specialized clinic. Material and methods: Consecutive patients, >18 years, referred with a possible TMD complaint to the Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction clinic, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, the Netherlands, were included in the study. All patients (n = 449; mean age 44 years; 72% females), answered the 3Q/TMD and the DC/TMD questionnaire before a DC/TMD examination. The 3Q/TMD constitutes of two questions on weekly pain from the jaw, face and temple region (Q1), and on function (Q2), and one function-related question on weekly catching and/or locking of the jaw (Q3). Q1 and Q2 were evaluated in relation to a DC/TMD pain diagnosis and Q3 in relation to a subgroup of DC/TMD intra-articular diagnosis, referred to as the reference standard. Results: In total, 44% of patients received a pain-related DC/TMD diagnosis and 33% an intra-articular reference DC/TMD diagnosis. Sensitivity for the two pain screening questions was high (0.83-0.94), whereas specificity was low (0.41-0.55). For the function-related question, sensitivity was low (0.48), whereas specificity was high (0.96). Conclusions: In a specialized pain clinic, the two pain questions (Q1, Q2) are positive in most patients with pain-related TMD. Therefore, in case of a positive response, further diagnostic procedures for TMD pain are warranted. For the functional screening question (Q3), a positive response is indicative for an intra-articular DC/TMD diagnosis, while in case of a negative outcome, an intra-articular TMD might still be present.

OBJECTIVE: Pain in the orofacial region may originate from different structures, and one challenge for the clinician is to determine the primary origin of pain reported by the patient. In clinical practice, it is important to discriminate between a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain disorder and jaw muscle pain; therefore, tests that are proposed for such purposes warrant evaluation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of a TMJ compression test in relation to a Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) arthralgia diagnosis. METHODS: A study population (n = 300), randomly selected from the adult population in Vasterbotten, Sweden, was examined according to the DC/TMD criteria and with a TMJ compression test. This test is comprised of forceful unilateral biting for 20 s on a wooden spatula in the first molar region. Familiar pain on the contralateral side to the clenching side was considered a positive test outcome. RESULTS: Positive contralateral outcome of the TMJ compression test was associated with an arthralgia diagnosis (B = 1.737; OR 5.7, 95% CI 3.3-9.9). This association was confounded by concurrent myalgia (B = 1.737 --> B = 0.996, 42.7%). CONCLUSION: In a general population, a negative TMJ compression test was strongly associated with the absence of a contralateral TMJ arthralgia diagnosis according to DC/TMD. The association between a positive TMJ compression test and a DC/TMD arthralgia diagnosis was confounded by the presence of myalgia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Concurrent myalgia renders the usefulness of the TMJ compression test for predicting an arthralgia diagnosis questionable.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are common but seem to be largely undetected within general dental care. To improve dentists' awareness of these symptoms, three screening questions (3Q/TMD) have been introduced. Our aim was to validate 3Q/TMD in relation to the diagnostic criteria for TMD (DC/TMD), while taking into account the severity level of the symptoms. The study population consisted of 7831 individuals 20-69 years old, who had their routine dental check-up at the Public Dental Health Service in Västerbotten, Sweden. All patients answered a health declaration, including the 3Q/TMD regarding frequent temporomandibular pain, pain on movement and catching/locking of the jaw. All 3Q-positives (at least one affirmative) were invited for examination in randomised order. For each 3Q-positive, a matched 3Q-negative was invited. In total, 152 3Q-positives and 148 3Q-negatives participated. At examination, participants answered 3Q/TMD a second time, before they were examined and diagnosed according to DC/TMD. To determine symptom's severity, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale and Jaw Functional Limitation Scale-20 (JFLS-20) were used. In total, 74% of 3Q-positives and 16% of 3Q-negatives met the criteria for DC/TMD pain or dysfunction (disc displacements with reduction and degenerative joint disorder were excluded). Fifty-five per cent of 3Q-positives had a TMD diagnosis and CPI score ≥3 or a JFLS-20 score ≥5, compared to 4% of 3Q-negatives. The results show that the 3Q/TMD is an applicable, cost-effective and valid tool for screening a general adult population to recognise patients in need of further TMD examination and management.

Objectives Pain referral on palpation has been suggested to be a clinical sign of central sensitization potentially associated with widespread pain conditions. Our aim was to evaluate if myofascial pain with referral is a better predictor for widespread pain when compared to no pain or local myofascial pain. Materials and methods Individuals at the Public Dental services in Vasterbotten, Sweden, were randomly invited based on their answers to three screening questions for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). In total, 300 individuals (202 women, 20-69 yrs) were recruited, and examined according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) after completion of a body pain drawing. Widespread pain was considered present when seven or more pain sites were reported on the widespread pain index. A binary logistic regression model, adjusted for the effect of age and gender were used to evaluate the association between myofascial orofacial pain and widespread pain. Results Widespread pain was reported by 31.3% of the study sample. There was a 57.3% overlap with myofascial pain. Widespread pain was associated to myofascial orofacial pain with and myofascial orofacial pain (OR 4.83 95% CI 2.62-9.05 and OR 11.62 95% CI 5.18-27.88, respectively). Conclusion These findings reinforce the existing knowledge on the overlap between painful TMD and other chronic pain conditions.

Objective: This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences.

Methods: The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications.

Results: The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject-Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self-report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra- and Extra-Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep-related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non-Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific subscales), are included. A user's guide for scoring the different items is also provided to ease administration.

Conclusions: The instrument is now ready for on-field testing and further refinement. It can be anticipated that it will help in collecting data on bruxism in such a comprehensive way to have an impact on several clinical and research fields.

This paper summarises the background reasoning and work that led to the selection of the items included in the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), also introducing the list of items. The instrument is currently being tested for face validity and on-field comprehension. The underlying premise is that the different motor activities included in the bruxism spectrum (e.g. clenching vs. grinding, with or without teeth contact) potentially need to be discriminated from each other, based on their purportedly different aetiology, comorbidities and potential consequences. Focus should be on a valid impression of the activities' frequency, intensity and duration. The methods that can be used for the above purposes can be grouped into strategies that collect information from the patient's history (subject-based), from the clinical assessment performed by an examiner (clinically based) or from the use of instruments to measure certain outcomes (instrumentally based). The three strategies can apply to all aspects of bruxism (i.e. status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences). The STAB will help gathering information on many aspects, factors and conditions that are currently poorly investigated in the field of bruxism. To this purpose, it is divided into two axes. Axis A includes the self-reported information on bruxism status and potential consequences (subject-based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental assessment (technology report). Axis B includes the self-reported information (subject-based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid role for bruxism. This comprehensive multidimensional assessment system will allow building predictive model for clinical and research purposes.

Objective: To present a list of key points for good Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) clinicalpractice on behalf of the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related DisordersMethodology (INfORM) group of the International Association for Dental, Oral and CraniofacialResearch (IADR).Methods: An open working group discussion was held at the IADR General Session in New Orleans(March 2024), where members of the INfORM group finalized the proposal of a list of 10 key points.Results: The key points covered knowledge on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Theyrepresent a summary of the current standard of care for management of TMD patients. They arein line with the current need to assist general dental practitioners advance their understanding andprevent inappropriate treatment.Conclusions: The key points can be viewed as a guiding template for other national and interna-tional associations to prepare guidelines and recommendations on management of TMDs adaptedto the different cultural, social, educational, and healthcare requirements.

The development of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) (1) involved expanding the taxonomy for all TMDs (2) in order to propose for future validation DC for empirically supported TMDs that were not part of the DC/ TMD structure. This expanded taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for operationalising and testing the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria in future research. During expansion of the taxonomy, researchers identified several challenges in the diagnosis of some disorders, so the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network planned a workshop to discuss criterion improvements for five of the disorders and the biobehavioural domain.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) are used worldwide in adults. Until now, no adaptation for use in children has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE: To present comprehensive and short-form adaptations of Axis I and II of the DC/TMD for adults that are appropriate for use with children in clinical and research settings.

METHODS: Global Delphi studies with experts in TMDs and in pain psychology identified ways of adapting the DC/TMD for children.

RESULTS: The proposed adaptation is suitable for children aged 6-9 years. Proposed changes in Axis I include (i) adapting the language of the Demographics and the Symptom Questionnaires to be developmentally appropriate for children, (ii) adding a general health questionnaire for children and one for their parents, (iii) replacing the TMD Pain Screener with the 3Q/TMD questionnaire, and (iv) modifying the clinical examination protocol. Proposed changes in Axis II include (i) for the Graded Chronic Pain Scale, to be developmentally appropriate for children, and (ii) adding anxiety and depression assessments that have been validated in children, and (iii) adding three constructs (stress, catastrophizing, and sleep disorders) to assess psychosocial functioning in children.

CONCLUSION: The recommended DC/TMD, including Axis I and Axis II, for children aged 6-9 years, is appropriate for use in clinical and research settings. This adapted first version for children includes changes in Axis I and Axis II changes requiring reliability and validity testing in international settings. Official translations to different languages according to INfORM requirements will enable a worldwide dissemination and implementation.

There is a need to expand the current temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) classification to include less common but clinically important disorders. The immediate aim was to develop a consensus-based classification system and associated diagnostic criteria that have clinical and research utility for less common TMDs. The long-term aim was to establish a foundation, vis-à-vis this classification system, that will stimulate data collection, validity testing and further criteria refinement. A working group [members of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), members of the Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), and members from other professional societies] reviewed disorders for inclusion based on clinical significance, the availability of plausible diagnostic criteria and the ability to operationalise and study the criteria. The disorders were derived from the literature when possible and based on expert opinion as necessary. The expanded TMDs taxonomy was presented for feedback at international meetings. Of 56 disorders considered, 37 were included in the expanded taxonomy and were placed into the following four categories: temporomandibular joint disorders, masticatory muscle disorders, headache disorders and disorders affecting associated structures. Those excluded were extremely uncommon, lacking operationalised diagnostic criteria, not clearly related to TMDs, or not sufficiently distinct from disorders already included within the taxonomy. The expanded TMDs taxonomy offers an integrated approach to clinical diagnosis and provides a framework for further research to operationalise and test the proposed taxonomy and diagnostic criteria

Objectives: The “nociceptive-specific” blink reflex (nBR) evoked by extraoral stimulation has been used to assess trigeminal nociceptive processing in patients with trigeminal nerve damage regardless of the site of damage. This study aimed to test the feasibility of nBR elicited by intraoral stimulation, compare intraoral and extraoral nBR and assess the intrarater and interrater reliability of the intraoral nBR for the maxillary (V2) and mandibular (V3) branches of the trigeminal nerve. Materials and methods: In 17 healthy participants, nBR was elicited by stimulation of two extraoral and two intraoral sites by two operators and repeated intraorally by one operator. Main outcome variables were intraoral stimulus-evoked pain scores and nBR R2 responses at different stimulus intensities. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability. Results: Dependent on the stimulus intensity, intraoral stimulation evoked R2 responses in up to 12/17 (70.6%) participants for V2 and up to 8/17 (47.1%) participants for V3. Pain scores (p < 0.003) and R2 responses (p < 0.004) increased with increasing intensities for V2, but not V3. The R2 responses were significantly smaller with intraoral stimulation compared to extraoral stimulation (p < 0.014). Overall, ICCs were fair to excellent for V2 but poor for V3. Conclusion: Intraorally evoked nBR was feasible in a subset of healthy participants and was less responsive than nBR with extraoral stimulation. The V2 nBR showed better reliability than V3. Clinical relevance: The nBR can be used to assess nerve damage to the maxillary intraoral regions, though other measures may need to be considered for the mandibular intraoral regions.

BACKGROUND: Unlike the psychosocial assessment established for adults in the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD), a standardized psychosocial assessment for children and adolescents with TMD complaints has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a new standardized instrument set to assess the psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents by adapting the psychosocial status and pain-related disability (Axis II) of the adult DC/TMD and by including new instruments.

METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to survey 23 international TMD experts and four international experts in pain-related psychological factors for consensus regarding assessment tools for psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The TMD experts reviewed 29 Axis II statements at round 1, 13 at round 2, and 2 at round 3. Agreement was set at 80% for first-round consensus level and 70% for each of the second and third rounds. The psychological experts completed a complementary Delphi survey to reach a consensus on tools to use to assess more complex psychological domains in children and adolescents. For the psychological experts, the first round included 10 open-ended questions on preferred screening tools for depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, sleep problems, and stress in children (ages 6-9 years old) and adolescents (ages 10-19 years old) as well as on other domains suggested for investigation. In the second round, the psychological experts received a 9-item questionnaire to prioritize the suggested instruments from most to least recommended.

RESULTS: The TMD experts, after three Delphi rounds, reached consensus on the changes of DC/TMD to create a form to evaluate Axis II in children and adolescents with TMD complaints. The psychological experts added tools to assess depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, catastrophizing, stress, and resilience.

CONCLUSION: Through international expert consensus, this study adapted Axis II of the adult DC/TMD to assess psychosocial functioning and pain-related disability in children and adolescents. The adapted Axis II protocols will be validated in the target populations.

AIM: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents.

METHOD: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of orofacial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five-item Likert scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next.

RESULTS: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed.

CONCLUSION: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

Aims: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments.

Methods: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project-the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings.

Results: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self report instrument sets. The screening instruments' 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions.

Conclusion: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations.

The individual inclination to lead an autonomous life until death is associated with requirements that may be of physiological, psychosocial and environmental nature. We aim to describe a conceptual oro-facial health model with an emphasis on oro-facial function, taking the domains of quality of life and patient-centred values into account. In the context of oro-facial function, the requirements of life are met when the oro-facial system is in a fit state. 'Fitness of the oro-facial system, that is oro-facial health, is a state that is characterised by an absence of, or positive coping with physical disease, mental disease, pain and negative environmental and social factors. It will allow natural oro-facial functions such as sensing, tasting, touching, biting, chewing, swallowing, speaking, yawning, kissing and facial expression'. In the presented conceptual model of oro-facial health, it is postulated that each individual has present and future potentials related to biological prerequisites and resources that are developed by an individual through the course of life. These potentials form the oro-facial functional capacity. When the individual potentials together do not meet the requirements of life anymore, dysfunction and disease result. The oro-facial system is subject to physiological ageing processes, which will inevitably lead to a decrease in the oro-facial functional capacity. Furthermore, comorbid medical conditions might hamper oro-facial function and, alongside with the ageing process, may lead to a state of oral hypofunction. Currently, there is a lack of widespread, validated, easy-to-use instruments that help to distinguish between states of oro-facial fitness as opposed to oral hypofunction. Clearly, research is needed to establish adequate, validated instruments alongside with functional rehabilitation procedures.

Distress, suffering and care-seeking behaviour are characteristics of pain-related disease and illness. Pain that transitions from an acute to a chronic phase carries with it the potential of further effects: these include a worsening of the disease or illness; high-impact chronic pain; and substantial personal, societal and economic burden. The biopsychosocial model directly addresses these multiple processes, yet clinical frameworks supporting this model are not universally implemented. This paper explores barriers to clinical implementation of a full biopsychosocial framework for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and other oro-facial pain (OFP) conditions. In June 2016, INfORM invited OFP researchers to a workshop designed to optimise the DC/TMD Axis-II. Workshop groups identified five sources of implementation barriers: (1) cultures and societies, (2) levels-of-care settings, (3) health services, (4) cross-cultural validity of self-report instruments and (5) provider and patient health literacy. Three core problems emerged: (A) mental health aspects are seldom fully considered, thus impairing the recognition of illness, (B) training in use of validated multi-axial assessment protocols is under-rated and insufficiently used, and (C) clinical assessment often fails to recognise that sensory and emotional dimensions are fundamental aspects of pain. To improve patient care, these barriers and problems require action. Most importantly, TMD/OFP educators and researchers need to coordinate globally and (i) be educated in the biopsychosocial model, (ii) implement evidence-based biopsychosocial guidelines for assessment and management of OFP conditions at their institutions, (iii) incorporate this model in undergraduate and postgraduate dental curricula and (iv) be responsive to stakeholders, including regulatory authorities and practitioners.

Background Ambulatory electromyographic (EMG) devices are increasingly being used in sleep bruxism studies. EMG signal acquisition, analysis and scoring methods vary between studies. This may impact comparability of studies and the assessment of sleep bruxism in patients. Objectives (a) To provide an overview of EMG signal acquisition and analysis methods of recordings from limited-channel ambulatory EMG devices for the assessment of sleep bruxism; and (b) to provide an overview of outcome measures used in sleep bruxism literature utilising such devices. Method A scoping review of the literature was performed. Online databases PubMed and Semantics Scholar were searched for studies published in English until 7 October 2020. Data on five categories were extracted: recording hardware, recording logistics, signal acquisition, signal analysis and sleep bruxism outcomes. Results Seventy-eight studies were included, published between 1977 and 2020. Recording hardware was generally well described. Reports of participant instructions in device handling and of dealing with failed recordings were often lacking. Basic elements of signal acquisition, for example amplifications factors, impedance and bandpass settings, and signal analysis, for example rectification, signal processing and additional filtering, were underreported. Extensive variability was found for thresholds used to characterise sleep bruxism events. Sleep bruxism outcomes varied, but typically represented frequency, duration and/or intensity of masticatory muscle activity (MMA). Conclusion Adequate and standardised reporting of recording procedures is highly recommended. In future studies utilising ambulatory EMG devices, the focus may need to shift from the concept of scoring sleep bruxism events to that of scoring the whole spectrum of MMA.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are the most common reason for chronic pain in the orofacial area and significantly impact the lives of those affected. The role of lifestyle factors in TMD, however, remains less explored. This cohort study aims to estimate TMD prevalence by addressing potential selection biases and to evaluate the association between TMD and lifestyle factors with a specific focus on sick leave and health related quality of life.

METHODS: By linking data on TMD in the general population in Västerbotten, northern Sweden (n = 180,000) to health survey data (n = 120,000), information on sociodemographic factors and quality of life was available for 52,961 individuals (50.6% women) with a mean age of 53 years. We applied inverse probability weighting to adjust for selection bias and Poisson regression to explore associations with TMD.

RESULTS: TMD prevalence was 9.2% during the study period, being higher in women (12.9%) than men (5.4%). Weighting for varying visiting frequencies did not affect TMD prevalence (average difference 0.4% points). Individuals with TMD, especially women, reported more sick leave and use of pain medication, with a significant association between TMD and increased sick leave (prevalence ratio 1.89, 95% CI: 1.78-2.01) among both women and men. In addition, TMD was associated with a lower health related quality of life (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: The association of TMD with sick leave highlights the condition's profound impact on the lives of affected individuals. These findings underscore the influence of TMD on work life and the burden of TMD on the societal level.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The findings provide insight into how TMD affect individuals, by incorporating lifestyle factors, social determinants and the impact of sick leave at a population level. By incorporating these areas into the study of TMD, we can deepen our understanding of how TMD affects individuals' lives. This approach may also create opportunities to develop more comprehensive strategies to address TMD, focusing on broader implications beyond the clinical symptoms.

This chapter first provides an overview of the distribution of painful comorbidities among persons with orofacial pain, in particular TMD-related pain, for which considerably more literature is available than for other orofacial pain conditions. The relatively scarce literature on comorbidities in orofacial pain conditions such as atypical odontalgia and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) suggests that these conditions show substantial overlap and similarities with TMD-related pain, both in the presence of painful and nonpainful comorbidities (e.g., psychological factors) and in the diagnostic, treatment, and prognostic effects of these comorbid factors. Hence, the literature discussed below on TMD-related pain could be considered a proxy for the literature on other orofacial pain conditions. Second, this chapter reviews studies that have demonstrated the effect of painful comorbidities on the occurrence and persistence of orofacial pain. We describe the relationship between psychological comorbidities and orofacial pain, with special emphasis on consideration of comorbidities (1) during clinical examinations, (2) when making a diagnosis, and (3) when designing appropriate treatment programs to reduce pain and dysfunction before chronic pain develops. © 2014 IASP Press. All rights reserved.

AIMS: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) clinical examination and of the dynamic/static tests for the recognition of TMD pain. Since the diagnosis of TMD pain is especially complicated in persistent orofacial pain patients, the test outcomes in persistent TMD pain patients were contrasted to those in two control groups: a group of persistent dental pain patients and a group of pain-free subjects. METHODS: In 125 persistent TMD pain patients, 88 persistent dental pain patients, and 121 pain-free subjects, a blind and standardized clinical examination was performed. RESULTS: For the RDC/TMD, sensitivity (88%) was high and specificity was low (pain-free group: 71%; dental pain group: 45%). For the dynamic/static tests, sensitivity was 65% and specificities were 91% and 84%, respectively. Comparing the outcomes of the two examinations showed higher positive likelihood ratios for dynamic/static tests (P < .001), and lower negative likelihood ratios for the RDC/TMD examination (P < .01). CONCLUSION: For the confirmation of a suspicion of TMD pain, it is better to rely on positive dynamic/static tests. To confirm the absence of TMD pain, it is better to rely on a negative RDC/TMD examination.