MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471148217 · doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2016.06.003

Mandibular movement during sleep bruxism associated with current tooth attrition

2016· article· en· W2471148217 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontic Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsSleep BruxismAttritionTooth wearSleep (system call)DentistryMedicineOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PATIENT: Observation of attrition patterns suggests that mandibular movement in sleep bruxism (SB) may be associated with current tooth attrition. The aim of this study was to confirm this phenomenon by investigating mandibular movement and masseter muscle activity. The subject was a healthy 21-year-old Japanese male. We recorded biological signals including mandibular movement and masseter electromyograms (EMGs) with a polysomnograph. Based on the EMG using Okura's criteria, SB events were classified into clenching, grinding and mixed types according to mandibular movement criteria. The close-open mandibular movement cycles (CO-cycles) during grinding and mixed type events were selected based on mandibular movement trajectories. DISCUSSION: Fifty-eight CO-cycles were selected in seven grinding and three mixed types. We found that SB mandibular movements associated with current tooth attrition. Excessive lateral movements (ELM) beyond the canine edge-to-edge position were observed in the closing (10.3%) and opening (13.8%) phases of the CO-cycle. Total masseter muscle activity was significantly higher during voluntary grinding (VGR) than during CO-cycle including ELM (working side: P=0.036, balancing side: P=0.025). However, in the middle and late parts of the opening phase, working side masseter muscle activity was significantly higher during CO-cycle including ELM than during VGR (P=0.012). In the early part of the closing phase, balancing side masseter muscle activity was significantly higher during CO-cycle including ELM than during VGR (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that excessive forceful grinding during ongoing SB events may have caused canine attrition in this patient.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it