Marine Guillot1,2, Sébastien Jungo3, Armelle Maniere1,2, Olivier Laplanche1,2, Yannick Tillier4, Elodie Ehrmann1,2,5. 1. Pôle Odontologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France. 2. UFR Odontologie, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France. 3. APHP, Department of Periodontology, Bretonneau Hospital, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 4. Biomechanics/Department of Computational Mechanics & Physics CEMEF - MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University, Paris, France. 5. Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
Abstract
Objective: The Evaluation of Clinical Practice (ECP) conducted with a sample of French general dental practitioners aimed to measure the methods used to diagnose and manage bruxism. Methods: The ECP was performed using a declarative online questionnaire-based anonymous survey (SurveyMonkey) of 1388 practitioners. Twenty-two questions were grouped in 5 categories: (1) Sociodemographic characteristics (Q1-6); (2) Knowledge of the prevalence and definition of bruxism (Q7-9); (3) Diagnostic approach (Q10-11) and management (Q12-Q13); (4) The use of occlusal splints (Q14-21); (5) Oral rehabilitation (Q22). Results: The answers obtained (233; 16.8%) revealed a wide disparity and insufficient diagnosis (e.g. only 41% looked for sleep disorders, 22.3% for consumption of stimulants, 3% for upper airway obstruction) and management of bruxism (e.g. only 21.9% of participants proposed cognitive-behavioral therapy).Discussion: The discrepancies detected, such as the use of inappropriate splints (30 to 70%), emphasize the need for more prompt research-to-practice transfer of new knowledge.
Objective: The Evaluation of Clinical Practice (ECP) conducted with a sample of French general dental practitioners aimed to measure the methods used to diagnose and manage bruxism. Methods: The ECP was performed using a declarative online questionnaire-based anonymous survey (SurveyMonkey) of 1388 practitioners. Twenty-two questions were grouped in 5 categories: (1) Sociodemographic characteristics (Q1-6); (2) Knowledge of the prevalence and definition of bruxism (Q7-9); (3) Diagnostic approach (Q10-11) and management (Q12-Q13); (4) The use of occlusal splints (Q14-21); (5) Oral rehabilitation (Q22). Results: The answers obtained (233; 16.8%) revealed a wide disparity and insufficient diagnosis (e.g. only 41% looked for sleep disorders, 22.3% for consumption of stimulants, 3% for upper airway obstruction) and management of bruxism (e.g. only 21.9% of participants proposed cognitive-behavioral therapy).Discussion: The discrepancies detected, such as the use of inappropriate splints (30 to 70%), emphasize the need for more prompt research-to-practice transfer of new knowledge.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bruxism; dental; diagnostic techniques and procedures; occlusal splint; oral rehabilitation; practice management