ArticleScientific reports2025
Relationship between bite force, bruxism, and fractures of teeth and dental restorations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing patient awareness of bruxism before dental implant therapy.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Muscle Tone Regulation and Bruxism in Chronic Stress: Pathophysiological Links to Tooth Fractures and Dental Hard Tissue Pathology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Partial Ceramic Veneers as a Conservative Restorative Strategy: A Narrative Review with Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Biosensors in dental, oral and craniofacial applications.Npj biosensing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this long-term follow-up study was to investigate the relationship between bite force, bruxism, and fractures of teeth and veneer porcelain of fixed dental prostheses. Patients previously assessed as probable bruxers (n = 30) and non-bruxers (n = 21), all rehabilitated with dental implant-supported restorations, underwent a clinical examination and measurement of maximum bite force. A univariate general linear model was used to compare regression lines showing the relationship between fractures and bite force. Bruxers had significantly higher maximum bite force (p = 0.023) and higher proportion of tooth/veneer porcelain fractures per total number of tooth/prosthetic units (p = 0.045). There was no significant difference in the relationship between frequency of tooth/veneer porcelain fractures and maximum bite force between probable bruxers and non-bruxers (p = 0.054). However, there was a significant difference between probable bruxers and non-bruxers when the percentage of fractures in relation to the total number of units was considered instead of the frequency of fractures (p = 0.035). Higher maximum bite force in probable bruxers was related to higher prevalence of fractures of teeth and veneer porcelain, emphasizing the potential benefits of pre-treatment assessment of bruxism as well as bite force. Easy-to-use reliable clinical methods for bite force measurement should be tested and implemented in dental practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.