Objective: This paper aims to present and describe the Standardised Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB), an instrument that was developed to provide a multidimensional evaluation of bruxism status, comorbid conditions, aetiology and consequences.Methods: The rationale for creating the tool and the road map that led to the selection of items included in the STAB has been discussed in previous publications.Results: The tool consists of two axes, specifically dedicated to the evaluation of bruxism status and consequences (Axis A) and of bruxism risk and etiological factors and comorbid conditions (Axis B). The tool includes 14 domains, accounting for a total of 66 items. Axis A includes the self‐reported information on bruxism status and possible consequences (subject‐based report) together with the clinical (examiner report) and instrumental (technology report) assessment. The Subject‐Based Assessment (SBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A1), Awake Bruxism (A2) and Patient's Complaints (A3), with information based on patients' self‐report. The Clinically Based Assessment (CBA) includes domains on Joints and Muscles (A4), Intra‐ and Extra‐Oral Tissues (A5) and Teeth and Restorations (A6), based on information collected by an examiner. The Instrumentally Based Assessment (IBA) includes domains on Sleep Bruxism (A7), Awake Bruxism (A8) and the use of Additional Instruments (A9), based on the information gathered with the use of technological devices. Axis B includes the self‐reported information (subject‐based report) on factors and conditions that may have an etiological or comorbid association with bruxism. It includes domains on Psychosocial Assessment (B1), Concurrent Sleep‐related Conditions Assessment (B2), Concurrent Non‐Sleep Conditions Assessment (B3), Prescribed Medications and Use of Substances Assessment (B4) and Additional Factors Assessment (B5). As a rule, whenever possible, existing instruments, either in full or partial form (i.e. specific subscales), are included. A user's guide for scoring the different items is also provided to ease administration.Conclusions: The instrument is now ready for on‐field testing and further refinement. It can be anticipated that it will help in collecting data on bruxism in such a comprehensive way to have an impact on several clinical and research fields.

To present a list of key points for good Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) clinical practice on behalf of the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM) group of the International Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (IADR). An open working group discussion was held at the IADR General Session in New Orleans (March 2024), where members of the INfORM group finalized the proposal of a list of 10 key points. The key points covered knowledge on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. They represent a summary of the current standard of care for management of TMD patients. They are in line with the current need to assist general dental practitioners advance their understanding and prevent inappropriate treatment. The key points can be viewed as a guiding template for other national and international associations to prepare guidelines and recommendations on management of TMDs adapted to the different cultural, social, educational, and healthcare requirements.

Objective: To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of headache disorders.Background: PNBshave long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice.Methods: TheAmericanHeadacheSocietySpecialInterestSection forPNBsand otherInterventionalProcedures convened meetings during 2010‐2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminalPNBs. A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology.Results: PNBindications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns.PNBsdescribed include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of thePNBshould result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication‐overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache.Conclusions: These recommendations from theAmericanHeadacheSocietySpecialInterestSection forPNBsand otherInterventionalProcedures members forPNBmethodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.