SUMMARY The review focuses on the last decade of research regarding the use of various oral appliances (OAs) in the management of sleep bruxism (SB) in adults. Sixteen (n = 16) papers of 641 identified citations involving 398 participants were included in the review. Of them, seven were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), seven were uncontrolled before-after studies and two were crossover trials. Analysis of the included articles revealed a high variability of study designs and findings. Generally, the risk of bias was lowto-unclear for RCTs and high for crossover studies, whilst the before-after studies exhibited several structural limitations. Nine studies used polysomnography/polygraphy/electromyography for SB diagnosis, whilst others were based on history taking and clinical examination. Most of them featured small samples and were short term. Of the studies using objective SB evaluations, eight showed positive results for almost every type of OA in reducing SB activity, with a higher decrease for devices that are designed to provide a certain extent of mandibular advancement. Among the studies using a subjective SB evaluation, one demonstrated a significant reduction in SB activity, and additional two showed a myorelaxant effect of OA in SB patients. Although many positive studies support the efficiency of OA treatment for SB, accepted evidence is insufficient to support its role in the long-term reduction of SB activity. Further studies with larger samples and sufficient treatment periods are needed to obtain more acknowledgements for clinical application.

No abstract

Development of additional education and practical implementation strategies should be considered in order to overcome the examined barriers.

Background.The aetiology of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) is multifactorial, whereas occlusal disharmony is one of the predisposing factors. Researchers still discuss the relation between occlusion and TMD.Objective.The study aims to investigate the relation between static occlusal parameters and TMD clinical symptoms using T-Scan II analysis system.Material and methods.The sample consisted of 44 persons divided into the treatment group of 20 TMD patients and the control group of 24 subjects without TMD. The main task of T-Scan II computerized occlusal analysis system was to record every patient’s occlusion and estimate static occlusal parameters: centre of occlusal force, asymmetry index of maximum occlusal force and occlusion time. These results were compared between groups, data related to patients’ complaints and clinical symptoms. The analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests.Results.Averages of the centre of occlusal force in TMD subjects were 6.55 ± 0.99 mm, in the control group – 5.88 ± 0.69 mm; the asymmetry index of maximum occlusal force averages: 15.90 ± 2.71 and 12.93 ± 1.88; occlusion time: 0.281 ± 0.036 s and 0.236 ± 0.022 s, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between two groups but they were found in the centre of occlusal force and the asymmetry index in the two groups (p < 0.05).Conclusions.There exists a relation between complaints of patients with TMD and static occlusion parameters. Values of the centre of the occlusal force distance and the asymmetry index of occlusal force in TMD patients with pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) were significantly higher than in the control group.

Purpose: To assess excess cement removal after cementation of implant-supported cement-retained restorations with different cements. Material and Methods: A dental model with imitation soft tissue, 20 individual zirconium oxide abutments, and 20 zirconium oxide crowns were fabricated. Half of the restorations were cemented using resin cement (RX) and the other half with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GC). After cement cleaning, each abutment-crown unit was removed from the model, photographed, and analyzed on four surfaces, resulting in a final sample size of 80 measurements. Radiographic examination and the computerized planimetric method in Adobe Photoshop were used to determine the amount of cement left and evaluate the ratio between the area of cement residue and all abutment-crown surfaces. Significance was set to .05. Results: GC resulted in 7.4% more cement residue on all surfaces (P < .05) than RX. The P value on three surfaces (all except the mesial) was < .05, indicating that the data were statistically significantly different between groups and surfaces. Complete removal of the cement was impossible in all cases (100%), but in 95% of cases, cement remnants could not be detected radiographically. Conclusions: More undetected cement remains when using GC. It was impossible to remove excess of both types of cement completely. Most of the cement remnants were located on the distal surface. Radiographic examination could not be considered as a reliable method to identify excess cement.