ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2026
Translation, cultural adaptation, and preliminary data evaluation of the Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) and BruxScreen in Turkey.
Article in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) and Bruxism Screener (BruxScreen) are instruments developed to support the structured evaluation of bruxism across clinical and research settings. For effective use in different populations, translation, cultural adaptation, and preliminary data collection are essential. This study aimed to translate the STAB and BruxScreen into Turkish and evaluate their comprehensibility, feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary clinical applicability.
methodsTranslation and cultural adaptation of both instruments into Turkish were performed according to original developers' guidelines. A panel of 12 experts in prosthodontics and/or orofacial pain supervised the process. Independent forward and backward translations were conducted and pilot-tested using the "Three-Step Test Interview" among patients, dentists, and dental students. Additionally, preliminary data were collected using selected components of both instruments to explore their clinical utility.
resultsBoth instruments were translated and culturally adapted. Pilot testing confirmed the face validity and demonstrated high levels of comprehensibility, feasibility, and acceptability across participant groups. Preliminary data collected from patients supported the instruments' applicability and initial clinical utility within the Turkish population.
conclusionsThe Turkish versions of both instruments appear to be valid and feasible tools for standardized bruxism assessment. The observed alignment between the outcomes of both instruments underscores their complementary nature and supports their combined use. Their integration may enhance the multidimensional evaluation of bruxism and contribute to international efforts aimed at refining and harmonizing assessment protocols across populations.
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.