Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: Report of a work in progress

Open access
Lobbezoo, F., Ahlberg, J., Raphael, K. G., Wetselaar, P., Glaros, A. G., Kato, T., Santiago, V., Winocur, E., De Laat, A., De Leeuw, R., Koyano, K., Lavigne, G. J., Svensson, P., Manfredini, D.·2018·Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

Abstract

Summary: In 2013, consensus was obtained on a definition of bruxism as repetitive masticatory muscle activity characterised by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible and specified as either sleep bruxism or awake bruxism. In addition, a grading system was proposed to determine the likelihood that a certain assessment of bruxism actually yields a valid outcome. This study discusses the need for an updated consensus and has the following aims: (i) to further clarify the 2013 definition and to develop separate definitions for sleep and awake bruxism; (ii) to determine whether bruxism is a disorder rather than a behaviour that can be a risk factor for certain clinical conditions; (iii) to re‐examine the 2013 grading system; and (iv) to develop a research agenda. It was concluded that: (i) sleep and awake bruxism are masticatory muscle activities that occur during sleep (characterised as rhythmic or non‐rhythmic) and wakefulness (characterised by repetitive or sustained tooth contact and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible), respectively; (ii) in otherwise healthy individuals, bruxism should not be considered as a disorder, but rather as a behaviour that can be a risk (and/or protective) factor for certain clinical consequences; (iii) both non‐instrumental approaches (notably self‐report) and instrumental approaches (notably electromyography) can be employed to assess bruxism; and (iv) standard cut‐off points for establishing the presence or absence of bruxism should not be used in otherwise healthy individuals; rather, bruxism‐related masticatory muscle activities should be assessed in the behaviour's continuum.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joor.12663

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 1,370

Metadata

Authors
Lobbezoo, F., Ahlberg, J., Raphael, K. G., Wetselaar, P., Glaros, A. G., Kato, T., Santiago, V., Winocur, E., De Laat, A., De Leeuw, R., Koyano, K., Lavigne, G. J., Svensson, P., & Manfredini, D.
Venue
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-21
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
837-844
ISSN
  • 0305-182X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2842
OpenAlex
W2809463215
Cited by
1,370
References
34
FWCI
126.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: Report of a work in progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/joor.12663
The paper
Lobbezoo, F., Ahlberg, J., Raphael, K. G., Wetselaar, P., Glaros, A. G., Kato, T., Santiago, V., Winocur, E., De Laat, A., De Leeuw, R., Koyano, K., Lavigne, G. J., Svensson, P., & Manfredini, D. (2018). International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: Report of a work in progress. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12663

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.