Table 2 Extraction of data from the selected articles
Studies selected | PICOS | Bruxism diagnosis | Principal results |
|---|---|---|---|
Padmaja Satheeswarakumar, 2018, Assessment of Mandibular Surface Area Changes in Bruxers Versus Controls on Panoramic Radiographic Images: A Case Control Study [21] | (P) 40 adults aged 20–30 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs analysed with ImageJ® (C) Comparison of the surfaces of the mandible, the coronoid process and the condylar process between a group of bruxer patients and a control group of non-bruxer patients (O) To evaluate a change in bone surface area in the mandible, coronoid process and condylar process in bruxer patients compared to non-bruxer patients (S) Monocentric comparative observational study | Questionnaire and confirmation by the wearing of a Bruxchecker® | Statistically significant difference between bruxer and non-bruxer patients, in favour of bruxer patients: - Significant reduction in the surface area of the condylar processes, p < 0.05 - Significant reduction in the surface area of the right coronoid process, p < 0.05 - Significant increase in the surface area of the left coronoid process, p < 0.05 No statistically significant difference in mandibular area |
Türp, 2021, Bone apposition at the mandibular angles as a radiological sign of bruxism: a retrospective study [22] | (P) 100 adults aged 21–83 years diagnosed as bruxers, 100 adolescents aged 12–18 years (control group) (I) Panoramic radiographs (C) Comparison of the presence or absence of directional change and macroscopically visible bone apposition at the mandibular angle (O) To evaluate the prevalence of macroscopically visible alterations at the mandibular angle and to detect different morphological characteristics of the gonial angles in bruxer patients compared to non-bruxer patients (S) Retrospective observational study (case–control) | Clinical examination | Statistically significant difference between the bruxer patients and the control group in favour of the bruxer patients: - The od ratio for unilateral apposition was 288 p < 0.0001 - The od ratio for bilateral apposition was 363 p < 0.0001 |
Isman, 2021, Evaluation of jaw bone density and morphology in bruxers using panoramic radiography [23] | (P) 120 adults aged 24–52 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs analysed with ImageJ® (C) Comparison of different mandibular cortical bone thicknesses and gonial shape changes between a group of bruxer patients and a control group of non-bruxer patients (O) To evaluate the effects of sleep bruxism on jaw bone density, mineralization and morphology in bruxer patients compared to non-bruxer patients (S) Monocentric comparative observational study | Self-administered questionnaire | - A significant association was observed between the shape of the inferior mandibular cortex and bruxer status (p < 0.012) - The width of the cortical bone below the mental foramen was significantly greater in bruxers (p < 0.006) - Presence of bony exostoses was associated with bruxer status (p < 0.001) -Antegonial notch depth was greater in bruxers than in non-bruxers (p < 0.001) - Cortical thickness at the gonial angle was significantly greater in bruxers (p < 0.001) - Panoramic mandibular index was not different in bruxers and non-bruxers (p > 0.05) - Thickness of the lower mandibular cortex opposite the anterior border of the ramus was not associated with bruxism status (p > 0.4) |
Eninanc, 2021, Evaluation of the effect of bruxism on mandibular cortical bone using radiomorphometric indices on panoramic radiographs [24] | (P) 252 adults aged 18 to 45 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs, analysis software not specified (C) Comparison of 3 radiographic indices to assess mandibular cortical thickness between a group of bruxers and a control group of non-bruxers (O) To evaluate radiographic changes occurring in the mandibles of bruxers following exposure to prolonged strong occlusal forces (S) Monocentric comparative observational study | Self-administered questionnaire (at least 2 criteria of Pintado et al. [30]) Clinical examination (all criteria of Rompre et al. [31]) Patients examined by a single maxillofacial radiologist | - Mean MI values were significantly higher in bruxers than in the control group (p = 0.007) - no significant difference in MCI between bruxers and non-bruxers p > 0.05 - the difference between the groups in terms of mean PMI values was not significant (p > 0.05) |
Gulec, 2021, Evaluation of the mandibular trabecular bone in patients with bruxism using fractal analysis [25] | (P) 212 adults aged 21–40 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs analysed with ImageJ® (C) Fractal analysis comparison of grey values of trabecular bone at the condyle, gonial angle and alveolar bone between a group of bruxer patients and a non-bruxer control group (O) To evaluate the effect of bruxism on the fractal dimension (density) of mandibular trabecular bone, and to evaluate the effectiveness of fractal analysis as a diagnostic test for bruxism (S) Monocentric comparative observational study | Self-administered questionnaire and clinical examination Examined by one person | - Right condyle measurements significantly smaller in bruxers p < 0.05 - No statistically significant difference found for the other parameters studied |
Eninanc, 2021, Investigation of mandibular fractal dimension on digital panoramic radiographs in bruxist individuals [26] | (P) 252 adults aged 18–45 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs analysed with ImageJ® (C) To compare the internal trabecular structure of different jaw sites by measuring the fractal dimension on panoramic radiographs acquired with automatic exposure dosing between a group of bruxer patients and a non-bruxer control group (O) To evaluate changes in mandibular trabecular bone structure in bruxism using fractal analysis on digital panoramic radiographs obtained with automatic dosing (S) Monocentric comparative observational study | Self-administered questionnaire (at least 2 criteria of Pintado et al. [30]) Clinical examination (all criteria of Rompre et al. [31]) Patients examined by a single maxillofacial radiologist | - Mean fractal dimension values in bilateral gonial regions of bruxers were significantly lower than those of controls (p = 0.049) - Differences in fractal dimension values between groups were not significant in condylar and dental regions (p > 0.05) |
Yilmaz, 2022, A new perspective for radiologic findings of bruxism on dental panoramic radiography [27] | (P) 209 adults diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs (C) Comparison of bone apposition at the mandible angle with a grade classification and Mandibular Cortical Index between a group of bruxer patients and a non-bruxer control group (O) To evaluate whether there is a relationship between the appositional classification in the mandible angle region and the mandibular cortical index (S) Retrospective cross-sectional study | Self-administered questionnaire (at least 2 criteria of Pintado et al. [30]) and clinical examination | - A statistically significant difference was found between MCI with bruxer and non-bruxer groups (p < 0.001) - There is no statistically significant difference between MCI and grades (p = 0.063) in bruxers |
Serafim, 2022, Impact of bruxism on craniomandibular morphology: A cone-beam computed tomographic study [28] | (P) 70 adults aged 18 to 44 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Cone Beam Computed Tomography analysed with ITK-SNAP 3.4.0 software (C) To evaluate the angle between the mandibular ramus and body and condylar volume,comparing the right and left sides (O) To evaluate morphological changes in the mandible concerning in bruxers and non-bruxers patients (S) Retrospective cross-sectional study | Clinical examination | - Significant difference was observed between bruxer and non-bruxers: right and left gonial angles were smaller in bruxers - No significant difference was observed between the groups with or without bruxism in relation to the right condylar volume (p = 0.956) and the left condylar volume (p = 0.740) |
Casazza, 2023 Evaluation of mandibular bone density in bruxers: the value of panoramic radiographs [29] | (P) 84 adults aged 19 to 84 years diagnosed as bruxers or non-bruxers (I) Panoramic radiographs analysed with ImageJ® (C) Comparison of the ratio of cancellous bone to cortical bone (in grey values) and presence or absence of bony exostoses at the mandibular angle between a group of bruxers and a control group of non-bruxers (O) To evaluate a difference in bone density at the level of the 1st mandibular premolar and the presence of bony exostoses at the mandibular angle between bruxers and non-bruxers (S) Retrospective cross-sectional study | Self-administered questionnaire Clinical examination by calibrated practitioners | Statistically significant difference between bruxer and non-bruxer patients, in favour of bruxer patients: - Higher cancellous to cortical bone ratio, p < 0.01 - Greater cancellous bone density, p < 0.01 - Higher number of bony exostoses at the mandibular angle, p < 0.01 |