Associations between sleep bruxism and other sleep-related disorders in adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews on sleep bruxism (SB) as a comorbid condition of other sleep-related disorders are lacking. Such reviews would contribute to the insight of sleep clinicians into the occurrence of SB in patients with other sleep-related disorders, and into the underlying mechanisms of such comorbid associations. This systematic review aimed: 1. to determine the prevalence of SB in adults with other sleep-related disorders; and 2. to determine the associations between SB and other sleep-related disorders, and to explain the underlying mechanisms of these associations. METHODS: A systematic search on SB and sleep-related disorders was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify eligible studies published until May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies. RESULTS: Of the 1539 unique retrieved studies, 37 articles were included in this systematic review. The prevalence of SB in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, periodic limb movement during sleep, sleep-related gastroesophageal reflux disease, REM behavior disorder (RBD), and sleep-related epilepsy was higher than that in the general population. The specific mechanisms behind these positive associations could not be identified. CONCLUSIONS: SB is more prevalent in patients with the previously mentioned disorders than in the general population. Sleep arousal may be a common factor with which all the identified disorders are associated, except RBD and Parkinson's disease. The associations between SB and these identified sleep-related disorders call for more SB screening in patients with the abovementioned sleep-related disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".