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.

Background: Bruxism is receiving increasing attention from both clinicians and researchers over the past decades. Recently, it has become clear that some aspects of the currently proposed, expert‐driven bruxism definitions raise questions and cause confusion among clinicians, researchers, educators and patients.Objectives: The aim of this report is threefold: (1) to provide the reader with a glossary of the existing definitions, (2) to discuss frequently asked questions regarding these definitions and (3) to suggest a road map for the next steps to be taken towards a better understanding of bruxism.Material and Methods: A closed (invitation‐only) full‐day workshop at the 2024 General Session & Exhibition of the International Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (IADR) convened international bruxism experts to discuss the current definitions. Insights from these discussions were compiled, analysed and summarised.Result: The present report provides a glossary of the constituent terms of the currently proposed definitions, an overview of the frequently asked questions and insights into the next steps to be taken. By current consensus and to avoid any further confusion, the addendum ‘in otherwise healthy individuals’ has been removed from the specific definitions of sleep and awake bruxism. In addition, the grading system's hierarchical organisation, as proposed previously, was revised and clarified, proposing the inclusion of terms based on self‐reporting, clinical examination and device‐based assessment tools.Conclusion: To ascertain that we all use the same terminology, we recommend using the current publication when referring to the definitions of bruxism and its constituent terms.

Recent observations in man of concomitant mandibular and head movements during single maximal jaw-opening/-closing tasks suggest a close functional relationship between the mandibular and the head-neck motor systems. This study was aimed at further testing of the hypothesis of a functional integration between the human jaw and neck regions. Spatiotemporal characteristics of mandibular and associated head movements were evaluated for 3 different modes of rhythmic jaw activities: self-paced continuous maximal jaw-opening/-closing movements, paced continuous maximal jaw-opening/-closing movements at 50 cycles/minute, and unilateral chewing. Mandibular and head-neck movements were simultaneously recorded in 12 healthy young adults, by means of a wireless opto-electronic system for 3-D movement recordings, with retro-reflective markers attached to the lower (mandible) and upper (head) incisors. The results showed that rhythmic mandibular movements were paralleled by head movements. An initial change in head position (head extension) was seen at the start of the first jaw-movement cycle, and this adjusted head position was retained during the following cycles. In addition to this prevailing head extension, the maximal jaw-opening/-closing cycles were paralleled by head extension-flexion movements, and in general the start of these head movements preceded the start of the mandibular movements. The results support the idea of a functional relationship between the temporomandibular and the cranio-cervical neuromuscular systems. We therefore suggest a new concept for human jaw function, in which "functional jaw movements" are the result of activation of jaw as well as neck muscles, leading to simultaneous movements in the temporomandibular, atlantooccipital, and cervical spine joints.

Although a fluctuating pattern of orofacial pain across the life span has been proposed, data on its natural course are lacking. The longitudinal course of orofacial pain in the general population was evaluated using data from routine dental check-ups at all Public Dental Health services in Västerbotten, Sweden. In a large population sample, 2 screening questions were used to identify individuals with pain once a week or more in the orofacial area. Incidence and longitudinal course of orofacial pain were evaluated using annual data for 2010 to 2017. To evaluate predictors for orofacial pain remaining over time, individuals who reported pain on at least 2 consecutive dental check-ups were considered persistent. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze the prevalence, accounting for repeated observations on the same individuals. In total, 180,308 individuals (equal gender distribution) were examined in 525,707 dental check-ups. More women than men reported orofacial pain (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.48-2.68), and there was a significant increase in the prevalence of reported pain from 2010 to 2017 in both women and men. Longitudinal data for 135,800 individuals were available for incidence analysis. Women were at higher risk of both developing orofacial pain (incidence rate ratio 2.37; 95% CI 2.25-2.50) and reporting pain in consecutive check-ups (incidence rate ratio 2.56; 95% CI 2.29-2.87). In the northern Swedish population studied, the prevalence of orofacial pain increases over time and more so in women, thus indicating increasing differences in gender for orofacial pain.