Sleep bruxism and obstructive sleep apnea: association, causality or spurious finding? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the available evidence on the putative relationships between sleep bruxism (SB) and, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) to assess the extent of research on this topic, and to formulate suggestions for future research. METHODS: A scoping review including studies examining temporal and overall association and prevalence of SB and OSA was performed. Six main databases and gray literature were searched. The studies selection was conducted by three independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the results was carried out. RESULTS: Thirteen studies in adults and eight studies in children were finally included. The median of concomitant conditions prevalence was 39.3% in adults and 26.1% in children. Marked methodological variability was identified among studies in adults and even more when we compared detection methods in children. No significant association between OSA and SB emerged in most studies in adults, while an association may be possible in children. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, it is not possible to confirm that there is a relationship between SB and OSA in adults. In patients under pediatric care, although this association seems plausible, there is currently insufficient supportive evidence. Standardized validated methodologies for identifying SB should be consistently used in both populations before reaching any conclusion regarding such association. Furthermore, assessment of shared phenotypes between patients with SB and patients with OSA may reveal new insights that will contribute to personalized approaches aiming to optimize the management of such comorbidities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".