Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39482898›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2025

Ontology and Bruxism: Do We Have Enough Information?

Daniele Manfredini, Frank Lobbezoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniele ManfrediniDepartment of Medical Biotechnologies, School of Dentistry, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Frank LobbezooDepartment of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9877-7640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea of classifying and defining bruxism according to ontological principles may be interesting, but currently we just do not have enough information to label in a black or white manner the many facets of bruxism. In an era in which general knowledge on bruxism by the dental communities is surely in need of improvement, efforts to clarify the road map tracked by the current panelists who drafted the definition should be appraised carefully. The recent introduction of a standardized multidimensional evaluation system (i.e., Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism [STAB]) and a screening instrument for bruxism (i.e., BruxScreen) should be viewed as the starting points to enter a new era in the discipline of bruxism, in which non-hierarchical and non-preconceived approaches are used to collect data. Artificial intelligence strategies to mine data gathered with the above instruments might help building predictive models along the etiology-status-consequences trajectory, as recently suggested in a model for awake bruxism metrics. Until then, proposals to adopt ontological principles to classify bruxism will be merely based on speculations rather than on facts.

Indexed as

BruxismBiological OntologiesHumansTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39482898
PMCPMC11680504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.