Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548672›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2025

Comparison Between Ecological Momentary Assessment and Self-Report of Awake Bruxism Behaviours in a Group of Healthy Young Adults.

Ovidiu Ionut Saracutu, Daniele Manfredini, Alessandro Bracci, Matteo Val, Marco Ferrari, Anna Colonna

Abstract readComparative Study
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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Awake Bruxism Identification: A Specialized Assessment Tool for Children and Adolescents-A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Ovidiu Ionut SaracutuOrofacial Pain Unit, School of Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2657-3280
Daniele ManfrediniOrofacial Pain Unit, School of Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4352-3085
Alessandro BracciDepartment of Neurosciences, School of Dentistry, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2692-9478
Matteo ValOrofacial Pain Unit, School of Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4574-4391
Marco FerrariOrofacial Pain Unit, School of Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5375-076X
Anna ColonnaOrofacial Pain Unit, School of Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5869-2068

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this investigation was to compare the self-reported frequency of awake bruxism (AB) behaviours by means of a validated single-observation point questionnaire (i.e., Oral Behaviour Checklist [OBC]) with the frequency reported in real-time with an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) over 1 week. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred healthy young adults took part in the study. The frequency of some activities belonging to the spectrum of AB behaviours (i.e., teeth contact, mandible bracing, teeth clenching, teeth grinding) was evaluated using the EMA approach with smartphone technology support over 1 week. The OBC questionnaire was used to evaluate the self-reported frequency of the same AB behaviours. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was adopted to test the correlation between the average score of each OBC question considered (i.e., teeth contact, mandible bracing, teeth clenching, teeth grinding) and the average frequency of the corresponding EMA item.

resultsStatistical analysis showed a weak-to-moderate level of correlation between the two different AB assessment methods. Mandible bracing showed the highest level of correlation, while teeth grinding had the lowest one.

conclusionsWhile the OBC represents a valid and easy-to-administer screening tool for evaluating bruxism behaviours, the EMA approach provides a more detailed real-time report on AB behaviours.

Indexed as

BruxismEcological Momentary AssessmentSelf ReportAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultawake bruxismbruxismecological momentary assessmentoral behaviour checklistself‐reportstandardised tool for the assessment of bruxism

Identifiers

PMID39548672
PMCPMC11788459

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.