Background/Aim Combat sports might result in injuries to the face and teeth. However, it is unclear how often they occur and which sports presents the highest rates. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of dentofacial injuries in combat sports participants. Material and Methods A systematic review was performed. Six main electronic databases and three grey literature databases were searched. Studies were blindly selected by two reviewers based on pre‐defined eligibility criteria. Studies that evaluated the prevalence of dentofacial injuries (teeth, alveolar bone, jaw, lips, and/or cheekbones) among combat sports participants were considered eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. The software r statistics version was used to perform all meta‐analyses. Cumulative evidence of the included articles was evaluated using GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Results From 1104 articles found on all databases, 27 were finally included. Eighteen studies were judged at low, seven at moderate, and two at high risk of bias. The following sports were investigated: boxing, capoeira, fencing, jiu‐jitsu, judo, karate, kendo, kickboxing, kung fu, muay thai, sumo, taekwondo, wrestling, and wushu. Results from the meta‐analysis suggested a dental pooled prevalence of 25.2% (12.3%‐40.8%, i2 = 100%) and dentofacial pooled prevalence of 30.3 (18.1%‐44.1%, i2 = 100%). Considering the sports' categories individually, jiu‐jitsu had the highest pooled prevalence of dentofacial injuries (52.9% [37.9%‐67.8%, i2 = 92%]), while judo was the sport with the lowest pooled prevalence (25.0% [7.6%‐48.2%, i2 = 98%]). Among Panamerican sports, boxing had the highest prevalence of dental injuries (73.7% [58.7%‐86.3%, i2 = 0%]). For dentofacial injuries, the GRADE criteria were considered low. Conclusions Overall pooled prevalence of dentofacial injuries in combat sports was approximately 30%. Raising awareness regarding the frequency of these injuries might encourage the use of protective devices and reduce complications related to these incidents.

Backgrounds/Aims Contact sports present intense physical contact, and usually, players have a high risk for dentofacial injuries. It is unclear how often these injuries occur and which contact sports present the highest rates. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of dentofacial injuries among contact sports participants. Methods A literature search was performed in seven electronic databases (Embase, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, and Web of Science). The gray literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest), as well as the reference lists of included studies, was assessed. Experts were consulted to indicate additional studies. The eligible studies were observational studies that contained details of the contact sports participants who were aged over 18 years old, either professional or not, who sustained at least one dentofacial injury in the past, the number of sustained injuries, and studies which provided quantitative data on the characteristics of the dentofacial injuries, such as type and site. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. Results Among 1152 identified studies, 17 articles remained for final analysis. One study was classified as high risk of bias, 14 studies as moderate, and two as low risk. The overall prevalence of dentofacial injuries was 27.57% (95% CI: 17.87‐38.47). The prevalence in each sport was rugby 37.36% (95% CI: 17.45‐59.82), basketball 27.26% (95% CI: 9.45‐50.08), handball 24.59% (95% CI: 14.88‐35.83), and field hockey 19.07% (95% CI: 6.82‐35.62). The most common injury was dental injury 19.61% (95% CI: 8.13‐34.56). Conclusion The overall prevalence of dentofacial injuries among collective contact sports participants was approximately 30%. The most common injury presented was dental injury.

Summary Background The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between sleep bruxism (SB) and anxiety symptoms in adults. Methods A systematic review was performed and studies assessing SB by means of questionnaires, clinical examination and/or polysomnography (PSG), and validated questionnaires to assess anxiety, were included. Search strategies were developed for seven main electronic databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross‐Sectional Studies, and confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Results Eight cross‐sectional studies were included, of which five were judged with low and three with moderate risk of bias. No association with SB was observed in three studies that investigated generic levels of anxiety, while other two papers that evaluated generic anxiety levels through the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) found a positive association with probable and definite SB in both STAI‐1 and STAI‐2 subscales. Only one study evaluated dental anxiety in particular and an association with probable SB was observed regarding very anxious or extremely anxious scores. Two studies assessed specific symptoms of anxiety using the panic‐agoraphobic spectra evaluation (PAS‐SR) questionnaire. Significantly higher PAS‐SR total scores were observed in both studies with regard to SB. No study with definitive assessment of SB was identified. Conclusion Current literature is controversial regarding an association between SB and generic symptoms of anxiety in adults. It seems that some specific symptoms of the anxiety disorders spectrum might be associated with probable SB.

No abstract