Reduction of sleep bruxism using a mandibular advancement device: an experimental controlled study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this experimental study was to compare the effect on sleep bruxism and tooth-grinding activity of a double-arch temporary custom-fit mandibular advancement device (MAD) and a single maxillary occlusal splint (MOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen intense and frequent bruxors participated in this short-term randomized crossover controlled study. All polygraphic recordings and analyses were made in a sleep laboratory. The MOS was used as the active control condition and the MAD was used as the experimental treatment condition. Designed to temporarily manage snoring and sleep apnea, the MAD was used in 3 different configurations: (1) without the retention pin between the arches (full freedom of movement), (2) with the retention pin in a slightly advanced position (< 40%), and (3) with the retention pin in a more advanced position (> 75%) of the lower arch. Sleep variables, bruxism-related motor activity, and subjective reports (pain, comfort, oral salivation, and quality of sleep) were analyzed with analysis of variance and the Friedman test. RESULTS: A significant reduction in the number of sleep bruxism episodes per hour (decrease of 42%, P < .001) was observed with the MOS. Compared to the MOS, active MADs (with advancement) also revealed a significant reduction in sleep bruxism motor activity. However, 8 of 13 patients reported pain (localized on mandibular gums and/or anterior teeth) with active MADs. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term use of a temporary custom-fit MAD is associated with a remarkable reduction in sleep bruxism motor activity. To a smaller extent, the MOS also reduces sleep bruxism. However, the exact mechanism supporting this reduction remains to be explained. Hypotheses are oriented toward the following: dimension and configuration of the appliance, presence of pain, reduced freedom of movement, or change in the upper airway patency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".