Diagnostic accuracy of a portable device (Bruxoff®) to measure sleep bruxism. (25th January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yanez‐Regonesi, Fernanda; Eisa, Elfatih; Judge, Stephanie; Carlson, Charles; Okeson, Jeffrey; Moreno‐Hay, Isabel
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral rehabilitation. Volume 50:Number 4(2023)
• Page Start: 258
• Page End: 266
• Publication Date: 2023-01-25
• Subjects: bruxism -- electromyography -- myography -- polysomnography -- sleep bruxism -- sleep wake disorders; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.13416
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-182X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Diagnosis of sleep bruxism (SB) challenges clinicians every day due to multiple forms of assessment tools available, including self‐reported questionnaires, clinical examinations, portable devices and laboratory polysomnography (PSG). PSG has become the gold standard for evaluating SB, but it can be limited due to cost and restricted accessibility which often is characterised by long waiting times. Hence, there is a need for the development of a reliable method that can assess SB in a simple and portable manner, which would offer acceptable sensitivity and specificity to evaluate SB. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate reliability and validity of the Bruxoff® device for the diagnosis of SB compared to the PSG. Methods: Forty‐nine subjects underwent one night of polysomnographic study with simultaneous recording with the Bruxoff® device. Rhythmic masticatory muscle activity (RMMA) index was scored according to published criteria. Pearson correlation, Bland–Altman plot and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve outcomes were used to quantify the agreement between both methods. Results: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an acceptable accuracy for the Bruxoff® with sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 72% when the cut‐off was set at two events per hour. Pearson correlation analysis showed a nearly significant correlation between PSG and Bruxoff® for RMMA index ( r = .282 p = .071) and for total SB episodes per night ( r = .295 p = .058). Additionally, the Bland–Altman plot revealed a consistent and systematic difference in the measurement of events between devices. Conclusion: The Bruxoff® device appears to be a promising diagnostic method for clinical use, but further study is needed. Abstract : The Bruxoff® presented acceptable sensitivity and specificity when compared to the gold standard when the cut‐off was set at 2 events per hour. However, it was not consistent in the recording of events as compared to PSG. Bruxoff® device appears to be a promising diagnostic method for clinical use but further studies are needed.