Effect of an adjustable mandibular advancement appliance on sleep bruxism: a crossover sleep laboratory study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this experimental study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a reinforced adjustable mandibular advancement appliance (MAA) on sleep bruxism (SB) activity compared to baseline and to a mandibular occlusal splint (MOS) in order to offer an alternative to patients with both tooth grinding and respiratory disorders during sleep. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve subjects (mean age: 26.0 +/- 1.5 years) with frequent SB participated in a short-term (three blocks of 2 weeks each) randomized crossover controlled study. Both brain and muscle activities were quantified based on polygraphic and audio/video recordings made over 5 nights in a sleep laboratory. After habituation and baseline nights, 3 more nights were spent with an MAA in either a slight (25%) or pronounced (75%) mandibular protrusion position or with an MOS (control). Analysis of variance and Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean number of SB episodes per hour was reduced by 39% and 47% from baseline with the MAA at a protrusion of 25% and 75%, respectively (P < .04). No difference between the two MAA positions was noted. The MOS slightly reduced the number of SB episodes per hour without reaching statistical significance (34%, P = .07). None of the SB subjects experienced any MAA breakage. CONCLUSION: Short-term use of an MAA is associated with a significant reduction in SB motor activity without any appliance breakage. A reinforced MAA design may be an alternative for patients with concomitant tooth grinding and snoring or apnea during sleep.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".