Music Modulates Awake Bruxism in Chronic Painful Temporomandibular Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective In this experimental study, we aimed to determine whether guided music listening (GML) – a music intervention based on models of mood mediation and attention modulation – modulates masticatory muscle activity and awake bruxism in subjects with chronic painful muscular temporomandibular disorders (TMD myalgia, mTMD), a condition causing a significant burden to patients, their families, and healthcare systems. Background Awake bruxism – a stress behavior characterized by clenching of the teeth – is a strong contributor to chronic mTMD. GML modulates psychological stress and motor responses and could thus reduce muscle activity in chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including mTMD. Methods We recorded the electromyographic (EMG) activity in the right masseter of 14 women with chronic (>6 months) mTMD (median [IQR] = 39.5.3 [24.3] years) and 15 pain‐free women (median [IQR] = 30.0 [3.5] years) during a GML session, including 3 music (stressful, relaxing, and participants' favorite music) and a no‐music (pink noise) control blocks, each lasting 15 minutes. We measured the motor effort of the right masseter relative to the participants' maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), the muscular effort to maintain mandibular posture (EMG posture ), and to produce spontaneous awake bruxism episodes (EMG bruxism ), and the duration and frequency of spontaneous awake bruxism episodes. We tested between‐group and within‐group (between blocks) differences, as well as the effect of the interaction group by experimental block on these outcome measures. Results In both groups, EMG posture was significantly affected by the interaction group by experimental block ( P < .001). Compared to pink noise [mean (95% CI); mTMD : 2.2 (1.6‐2.8) %MVC; Controls : 1.1 (0.5‐1.7) %MVC], EMG posture increased during the stressful music block [contrast estimate (95% CI); mTMD : +0.8 (0.7‐0.8) %MVC; Controls : +0.3 (0.3‐0.4) %MVC; both P < .001], and decreased during the relaxing [ mTMD : −0.4 (−0.5 to −0.4) %MVC; Controls : −0.3 (−0.4 to −0.3) %MVC; both P < .001] and favorite [ mTMD : −0.5 (−0.6 to −0.5) %MVC; Controls : −0.5 (−0.5 to −0.4) %MVC; both P < .001] music blocks. EMG posture was greater in mTMD individuals than controls during the favorite music [contrast estimate (95% CI): +1.1 (0.2‐1.9) %MVC; P = .019] and the pink noise [+1.1 (0.2‐2.0) %MVC; P = .014] blocks. EMG bruxism was significantly affected by the interaction group by experimental block ( P < .001). In mTMD participants, compared to the pink noise block [mean (95% CI); 23.8 (16.0‐31.6) %MVC], EMG bruxism increased during the stressful music block [contrast estimate (95% CI); +10.2 (8.6‐11.8) %MVC], and decreased during the relaxing [−6.2 (−8.1 to −4.3) %MVC; P < .001] and favorite [−10.2 (−12.2 to −9.1) %MVC; P < .001] music blocks. These effects were not observed in the control group [mean (95% CI); pink noise: 19.3 (10.9‐27.6); stressful: 21.2 (12.9‐29.4) %MVC; relaxing: 21.6 (13.3‐29.9) %MVC; favorite: 24.2 (15.8‐32.7) %MVC; all P > .05]. EMG bruxism was significantly greater in mTMD participants than controls during the stressful music block [contrast estimate (95% CI): +12.9 (1.6‐24.2) %MVC; P = .026). GML did not affect the duration or the frequency of awake bruxism in either group (median [IQR], mTMD : 23.5 [96.7] s, range 1‐1300 seconds; Controls : 5.5 [22.5], range 0‐246 seconds; P = .108). The frequency of awake bruxism episodes was greater in the mTMD group compared to controls only during the pink noise block (median [IQR], mTMD : 5 [15.3] episodes, range 0‐62 episodes; Controls : 1 [3] episode, range 0‐27 episodes; P = .046). No significant between‐group differences were found in either the overall time spent engaging in awake bruxism (median [IQR], mTMD : 23.5 [96.7] s, range 1‐1300 seconds; Controls : 5.5 [22.5], range 0‐246 seconds; P = .108), or during each block (all P > .05). Conclusions In subjects with chronic mTMD, relaxing music and the individual's favorite music decreased the muscular effort during spontaneous awake bruxism episodes by 26% and 44% (relative changes), respectively. In contrast, stressful music increases it by about 43%. Because of its positive effects on awake bruxism, GML with selected music could be a promising and non‐invasive component of a multimodal approach for the management of chronic mTMD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".