ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Revealing the Latent Structure of the Oral Behaviours Checklist: Integrating Bayesian Factor Analysis and Network Analysis.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Oral Behaviours Checklist (OBC) is widely used, but its latent structure remains unclear. This study was designed to clarify its latent structure and to identify common factors and isolated items relevant to TMD assessment.
methodsA cross-sectional study of 1014 patients with TMD (79.1% female; median age, 25.0 years) was conducted. The waking-state OBC's structure was examined using Bayesian exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and validated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Network analysis was used to identify central and isolated items and to examine bridging connections with depression, anxiety, jaw function, and oral health-related quality of life.
resultsBayesian EFA revealed a robust five-factor structure for the waking-state OBC: (1) Awake Bruxism, (2) Jaw Posturing, (3) Oral Manipulation, (4) Jaw Bracing, and (5) Functional Behaviours. This structure was supported by sensitivity analyses and demonstrated good fit in CFA (CFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.919, RMSEA = 0.050, SRMR = 0.044). Network analysis identified three isolated items. Only the Awake Bruxism factor was significantly associated with pain-related TMD and pain intensity. Cross-scale network analysis showed the Oral Manipulation factor was a central bridge to depression, while Awake Bruxism items bridged to anxiety, jaw dysfunction, and reduced oral health-related quality of life.
conclusionThe waking-state OBC exhibits a five-factor structure, with three isolated items that should be evaluated separately. For clinical efficiency, focusing on the core 'Awake Bruxism' items is justified, whereas factor-specific scoring is recommended in research to capture the heterogeneity of oral behaviours.
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.