AIMS: First, to evaluate possible orofacial morphologic differences between sleep bruxers and non-bruxers, and second, to determine possible correlations between morphologic factors and striatal D2 receptor expression in persons with sleep-related oromotor activities. METHODS: Twenty subjects were included in this study; half of them had polysomnographically confirmed oromotor values above the cutoff points for sleep bruxism. For all participants, 26 standard occlusal measures were recorded clinically and from dental study casts. In addition, 25 standard angular and linear measures were taken from standardized cephalometric films, and variables were derived to evaluate dental and skeletal relationships. Fourteen of the 20 participants had also participated in a previous study that included iodine-123-iodobenzamide (I-123-IBZM) and single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT). For them, the side-to-side difference in striatal D2 receptor binding was determined as the neurochemical outcome measure. RESULTS: Following the classical Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, no morphologic differences were found between the sleep bruxers and the non-bruxers. In addition, none of the morphologic variables were significantly associated with the neuroimaging data. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the low power of this retrospective, exploratory study, the results suggest that the orofacial morphology of sleep bruxers does not differ from that of non-bruxers. In addition, morphologic factors are probably not involved in the asymmetry in striatal D2 receptor distribution that was previously observed in association with sleep bruxism.
AIMS: First, to evaluate possible orofacial morphologic differences between sleep bruxers and non-bruxers, and second, to determine possible correlations between morphologic factors and striatal D2 receptor expression in persons with sleep-related oromotor activities. METHODS: Twenty subjects were included in this study; half of them had polysomnographically confirmed oromotor values above the cutoff points for sleep bruxism. For all participants, 26 standard occlusal measures were recorded clinically and from dental study casts. In addition, 25 standard angular and linear measures were taken from standardized cephalometric films, and variables were derived to evaluate dental and skeletal relationships. Fourteen of the 20 participants had also participated in a previous study that included iodine-123-iodobenzamide (I-123-IBZM) and single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT). For them, the side-to-side difference in striatal D2 receptor binding was determined as the neurochemical outcome measure. RESULTS: Following the classical Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, no morphologic differences were found between the sleep bruxers and the non-bruxers. In addition, none of the morphologic variables were significantly associated with the neuroimaging data. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the low power of this retrospective, exploratory study, the results suggest that the orofacial morphology of sleep bruxers does not differ from that of non-bruxers. In addition, morphologic factors are probably not involved in the asymmetry in striatal D2 receptor distribution that was previously observed in association with sleep bruxism.
Authors: Helena Martynowicz; Pawel Dymczyk; Marzena Dominiak; Klaudia Kazubowska; Robert Skomro; Rafal Poreba; Paweł Gac; Anna Wojakowska; Grzegorz Mazur; Mieszko Wieckiewicz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.241