Associations among Bruxism, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, and Tooth Wear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between bruxism and tooth wear is contentious in the literature. The pathophysiological processes of tooth wear may be complicated by the relationship between bruxism and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the associations among bruxism, GERD, and tooth wear. Two complementary studies were performed: a case-control study to verify the linkage between GERD and bruxism and a cross-sectional study on the same cohort to establish the connection between GERD and tooth wear in bruxism patients. A cohort of 363 consecutive bruxism patients and 363 matched control participants were recruited. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was diagnosed in accordance with the Montreal criteria. Tooth wear was scored based on the index recommended by Smith and Knight. Logistic regression analyses were performed. After adjustment, GERD was identified as a risk factor of bruxism. Bruxism with reflux symptoms for extensive time-periods was associated with severe tooth wear for the whole dentition (odds ratio, 4.70, 95% confidence interval, 2.04⁻10.83). Increased odds ratios for severe tooth wear were also found in all tooth locations and palatal/lingual and occlusal/incisal surfaces of bruxism patients with GERD for extensive time-periods. In conclusion, strong associations were identified among bruxism, GERD, and tooth wear.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".