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.

Awake bruxism (AB) is differentiated from sleep bruxism (SB) by the differences in etiology, comorbidities, and consequences related to the different spectrum of muscle activities exerted in relation to the different circadian manifestations. Furthermore, less literature data are available on AB than on SB. The introduction of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) strategies has allowed for collecting valuable data on the frequency of the different activities reported by an individual in his/her natural environment. This strategy has been further improved with the recent use of smartphone technologies. Recent studies have described an average frequency of AB behaviors, within the range of 23–40% for otherwise healthy young adults. An association between AB and some psychological traits has emerged, and the findings have indicated that patients with musculoskeletal symptoms (e.g., temporomandibular joint and/or muscle pain, muscle stiffness, and fatigue) report higher AB frequencies. Preliminary data suggest that muscle bracing and teeth contact are the most commonly reported behaviors, while teeth clenching is much less frequently reported than commonly believed previously. Report of teeth grinding during wakefulness is almost absent. This paper has critically reviewed the currently available approaches for the assessment of AB. In addition, some future perspectives and suggestions for further research have been provided.

Background: With time, due to the poor knowledge on it epidemiology, the need to focus on awake bruxism as a complement of sleep studies emerged.Objective: In line with a similar recent proposal for sleep bruxism (SB), defining clinically oriented research routes to implement knowledge on awake bruxism (AB) metrics is important for an enhanced comprehension of the full bruxism spectrum, that is better assessment and more efficient management.Methods: We summarised current strategies for AB assessment and proposed a research route for improving its metrics.Results: Most of the literature focuses on bruxism in general or SB in particular, whilst knowledge on AB is generally fragmental. Assessment can be based on non‐instrumental or instrumental approaches. The former include self‐report (questionnaires, oral history) and clinical examination, whilst the latter include electromyography (EMG) of jaw muscles during wakefulness as well as the technology‐enhanced ecological momentary assesment (EMA). Phenotyping of different AB activities should be the target of a research task force. In the absence of available data on the frequency and intensity of wake‐time bruxism‐type masticatory muscle activity, any speculation about the identification of thresholds and criteria to identify bruxers is premature. Research routes in the field must focus on the improvement of data reliability and validity.Conclusions: Probing deeper into the study of AB metrics is a fundamental step to assist clinicians in preventing and managing the putative consequences at the individual level. The present manuscript proposes some possible research routes to advance current knowledge. At different levels, instrumentally based and subject‐based information must be gathered in a universally accepted standardised approach.

To investigate the effect of the Coronavirus pandemic on the report of psychological status, bruxism, and TMD symptoms.An online survey was drafted to report the presence of psychological status, b...

Self-reported awake bruxism (AB) has been associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the daily amount of AB behavior has not been quantified in pain patients. Therefore, this study aimed to assess AB frequency in patients with myofascial pain and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain and compare it to a group of pain-free individuals. Eighty-four individuals belonging to either a TMD group (n = 54) or a healthy control group (n = 30) were selected. AB frequency was obtained by ecological momentary assessment with a dedicated smartphone application that sent sound alerts at random intervals during the day for one week. Upon receiving the alert, the volunteer reported the current muscular condition and/or the teeth position, i.e., relaxed jaw muscle, jaw bracing, teeth contact, teeth clenching, or teeth grinding. Data were evaluated by independent t-test (α = 0.05). During the seven days, AB frequency was 62.1% ± 26.8% for TMD patients and 36.2% ± 27.3% for pain-free subjects (p < 0.001). Mandible bracing was most common in the TMD group (p < 0.001), while teeth contact, clenching, and grinding did not differ between groups. Moreover, no differences were found in AB frequency between myofascial pain and TMJ pain patients. Therefore, TMD patients have higher AB frequency characterized by jaw bracing, irrespective of pain location.