ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Reliability, Construct Validity, Acceptability and Feasibility of the BruxScreen.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral health-related quality of life and factors associated with sleep bruxism in Brazilian preschool children: comparative cross-sectional study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe recently developed BruxScreen consists of two parts: BruxScreen-Q (self-report questionnaire) and BruxScreen-C (clinical assessment).
objectivesTo test the intra- and inter-rater reliability, construct validity, acceptability and feasibility of the BruxScreen-Q and BruxScreen-C and assess their concordance among Dutch dental students.
methods88 out of 109 potentially eligible dental master students completed a set of questionnaires two times (Q1; Q2) and participated in two clinical workshops (CE1; CE2), using the BruxScreen-Q and BruxScreen-C, respectively. Intra-rater reliability of the BruxScreen-Q and concordance between the BruxScreen-Q and BruxScreen-C were assessed using Cohen's (weighted) Kappa. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the BruxScreen-C were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients calculated from generalised linear mixed-effects models. Construct validity of the BruxScreen-Q was tested using Spearman's Rank Correlation or Mann-Whitney U test based on hypothesis testing. Acceptability and feasibility of the BruxScreen were assessed using descriptive statistics.
resultsIntra-rater reliability for BruxScreen-Q was fair to substantial. Intra- and inter-rater reliability for BruxScreen-C varied from poor to excellent. BruxScreen-Q showed moderate construct validity, based on the acceptable consistency between the actual and hypothesised effect size of the questionnaire items. BruxScreen-Q (Q2) and BruxScreen-C (CE2) were found both acceptable and feasible by a majority of the students. There was no agreement between subject-based bruxism according to the BruxScreen-Q and clinically based bruxism according to the BruxScreen-C.
conclusionThe BruxScreen demonstrates acceptable reliability, construct validity, acceptability and feasibility in assessing both subject-based bruxism and clinically based bruxism. However, there is a discrepancy between self-reported bruxism and the clinicians' diagnosis.
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.