Is Insomnia Linked to Sleep Bruxism in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Systematically evaluate the previous literature on the association between insomnia and sleep bruxism (SB) in adults. METHODS: Advanced searches were performed in different databases (PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature until March 2025. Two trained reviewers independently conducted all stages of the review to identify observational studies evaluating the association between insomnia and SB in adults. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A narrative synthesis summarised the main characteristics of the included studies. Meta-analyses were performed to obtain pooled estimates separately for self-reported and polysomnography (PSG)-based SB. Available data on insomnia and SB were converted into odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of the 1135 records initially identified, 931 were screened by title and abstract, and 23 were assessed in full text. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and six were eligible for meta-analysis, comprising a total sample of approximately 6990 adults. The meta-analysis of four studies investigating the association between insomnia and self-reported SB found no statistically significant association under the random-effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.79-1.72). Likewise, the pooled analysis of studies assessing PSG-based SB also showed no significant association with insomnia (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.43-1.95). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a lack of consistent evidence for a significant association between insomnia and SB. This conclusion is further limited by the small number of included studies, the moderate risk of bias in some studies, and the observed heterogeneity.
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 | 0.022 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".