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.

Disc displacement with reduction (DDWR) is one of the most common intra-articular disorders of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Factors related to the etiology, progression and treatment of such condition is still a subject of discussion. This literature review aimed to address etiology, development, related factors, diagnosis, natural course, and treatment of DDWR. A non-systematic search was conducted within PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, Medline, LILACS and Science Direct using the Medical Subjective Headings (MeSH) terms “temporomandibular disorders”, “temporomandibular joint”, “disc displacement” and “disc displacement with reduction”. No time restriction was applied. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analysis and clinical trials were included. DDWR is usually asymptomatic and requires no treatment, since the TMJ structures adapt very well and painlessly to different disc positions. Yet, long-term studies have shown the favorable progression of this condition, with no pain and/or jaw locking occurring in most of the patients.

To systematically review studies that investigated the effect of low level laser therapy (LLLT) on the pain levels in individuals with TMD. The databases Scopus, embase, ebsco and PubMed were reviewed from January/2003 to October/2010 with the following keywords: laser therapy, low-level laser therapy, temporomandibular joint disorders, temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome, temporomandibular joint, temporomandibular, facial pain and arthralgia, with the inclusion criteria for intervention studies in humans. exclusion criteria adopted were intervention studies in animals, studies that were not written in english, Spanish or Portuguese, theses, monographs, and abstracts presented in scientific events. After a careful review, 14 studies fit the criteria for inclusion, of which, 12 used a placebo group. As for the protocol for laser application, the energy density used ranged from 0.9 to 105 J/cm2, while the power density ranged from 9.8 to 500 mW. The number of sessions varied from 1 to 20 and the frequency of applications ranged from daily for 10 days to 1 time per week for 4 weeks. A reduction in pain levels was reported in 13 studies, with 9 of these occurring only in the experimental group, and 4 studies reporting pain relief for both the experimental group and for the placebo. Most papers showed that LLLT seemed to be effective in reducing pain from TMD. However, the heterogeneity of the standardization regarding the parameters of laser calls for caution in interpretation of these results. Thus, it is necessary to conduct further research in order to obtain a consensus regarding the best application protocol for pain relief in patients with TMD.

Background: Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self‐reported or proxy‐reported signs and symptoms; there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations.Objective: To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents.Method: A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro‐facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five‐item Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next.Results: After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed.Conclusion: Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.