| Literature DB >> 35195761 |
Michelle Alicia Ommerborn1, Nicole Walentek2,3, Nora Bergmann2, Michael Franken2, Andreas Gotter4, Ralf Schäfer3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate a new diagnostic method (DIABRUX) for quantifying sleep bruxism (SB) activity using the current gold standard, polysomnography (PSG), as a criterion in an adequate sample size investigation.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnostic tool; Polysomnography; ROC curve; Sleep bruxism; Tooth attrition; Vacuum-formed sheet
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35195761 PMCID: PMC9203408 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04398-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Oral Investig ISSN: 1432-6981 Impact factor: 3.606
Fig. 1Evaluation of abrasion patterns of the diagnostic sheet using image processing a Floating automatic white balance and scrap to detected relevant area (whole sheet). b Colour saturation used as first filter for further evaluation. c Image after colour selection (here for total abrasion) and median filtering. d Black-white image of detected abraded areas after filter application, cut-off and further binary operations
Sleep bruxism indices for SB and non-SB subjects
| SB subjects ( | Non-SB subjects ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Mean (CI 95%) | SD | Mean (CI 95%) | SD | Statistic | |
| Number of RMMA episodes/hour | 8.4 (5.14–11.67) | 4.56 | 2.4 (2.07–2.73) | 0.9 | 350.00b | < .001 |
| Number of bursts/hour | 57.8 (17.50–98.12) | 56.35 | 8.9 (7.25–10.57) | 4.8 | 350.00b | < .001 |
| Number of RMMA episodes with grinding noisea | 25.0 (− 0.24–50.24) | 35.28 | 1.9 (0.97–2.91) | 2.7 | 295.00b | < .001 |
Standard deviation, SD; Confidence interval, CI; degrees of freedom, df; aMissing values n = 2, bWilcoxon rank sum test, †adjusted p-values after controlling the FDR
Fig. 2Two different diagnostic sheets, each worn for 5 consecutive nights. a displays a sheet from a SB subject (bruxism episodes/hour = 4.40) with pixel score of 1736. b shows a sheet from a non-SB subject (bruxism episodes/hour = 1.05) with pixel score of 183
Fig. 3Receiver operator characteristic curve. PSG classification (SB subjects, non-SB subjects) was used as binary outcome. Pixel score of the diagnostic sheet was used as the predictor. Area under the curve (AUC) fits to 0.88. Number of positives = 10, number of negatives = 35. The optimal ratio between sensitivity and specificity (Youden index) is marked by a dot and corresponds to a cut-off pixel score of 507. TPR = true positive rate or sensitivity, FPR = false positive rate or 1 – specificity
Indices of the new diagnostic method for SB and non-SB subjects
| SB subjects ( | Non-SB subjects ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean (CI 95%) | SD | Mean (CI 95%) | SD | Statistic | df | |
| Pixel score (pixels) | 1306 (652–1959) | 913 | 381 (215–547) | 483 | 308.00a | - | < .001 |
| Total area of plate (pixels) | 221,987 (193,585–250,389) | 39,703 | 240,904 (230,818–250,990) | 29,362 | − 1.40b | 11.96 | .186 |
| Total abraded area (pixels) | 6303 (2979–9626) | 4646 | 1968 (1238–2699) | 2126 | 297.00a | - | < .001 |
| Abraded volume (mm3) | 1.10 (0.58–1.76) | 0.80 | 0.30 (0.19–0.49) | 0.40 | 308.00a | - | < .001 |
aWilcoxon rank sum test, bStudent t test, †adjusted p-values after controlling the FDR
Sleep variables for SB and non-SB subjects
| SB subjects ( | Non-SB subjects ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Statistic | df | |
| TST (min) | 398.2 | 46.7 | 440.5 | 43.0 | − 2.56a | 13.67 | 0.206 |
| SE (%) | 93.1 | 4.9 | 94.6 | 3.1 | 155.00b | - | 0.764 |
| SL (min) | 16.7 | 24.3 | 7.1 | 7.4 | 235.50b | - | 0.304 |
| RL (min) | 74.3 | 10.5 | 77.7 | 29.6 | 170.50b | - | 0.913 |
| N1 (%) | 5.5 | 4.2 | 6.6 | 4.2 | 130.50b | - | 0.517 |
| N2 (%) | 41.0 | 5.3 | 42.8 | 5.2 | 149.00b | - | 0.739 |
| N3 (%) | 26.6 | 4.4 | 23.6 | 5.3 | 1.85a | 17.37 | 0.304 |
| R (%) | 26.6 | 4.2 | 26.8 | 4.7 | − 0.12a | 16.08 | 0.913 |
| WASO (min) | 12.6 | 11.4 | 15.6 | 13.5 | 136.50b | - | 0.539 |
, total sleep time; SE, sleep efficiency; SL, sleep latency; RL, REM latency; WASO, wake after sleep onset; aStudent’s t, bWilcoxon rank sum test, †adjusted p-values after controlling the FDR
Fig. 4Distribution of subjective ratings of the new diagnostic method. Wear comfort a could be rated from 0 = ‘very bad’ to 10 = ‘very good’ and practicability b from 0 = ‘very impractical’ to 10 = ‘very practical’