The aim of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality and the risk of bias of systematic reviews with regard to the literature on therapies for sleep bruxism (SB) in dentistry, applying the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) qualitative guide, as well as the effectiveness of various kinds of treatment of SB. Initially, a total of 1,499 articles were obtained from 4 databases and 2 websites. Relevant articles were obtained from the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases as well as from Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Six systematic reviews that met the eligibility criteria were included. The methodological quality of all systematic reviews, assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool, was critically low. Regarding treatment effectiveness, 5 systematic reviews reported on pharmacological management (botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A), clonazepam and clonidine), 2 reported on oral appliances (OAs) (stabilizing splints and mandibular advancement devices (MADs)) and 1 study addressed the effects of biofeedback (BF). The results of the therapies were diverse and confusing. The available research is not conclusive, and does not show clear evidence or a consensus on the part of researchers on the most effective treatment for the management of SB. More research of better methodological quality is needed in this area.

Review question / Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of the literature and the risk of bias used in systematic reviews of therapies for bruxism in dentistry, applying the Amstar II qualitative guide and to answer the following question: What do we know so far about the different treatments applied for bruxism and their effectiveness, as well as what is the overall confidence of the systematic reviews evaluating this topic? Condition being studied: There is an ongoing debate about the causal factors associated with patients diagnosed with bruxism and thus various treatment approaches, so according to the available scientific evidence there is no consensus on which is the most effective. (4) (8) (10). According to several studies, occlusal splints do not currently have a scientifically proven efficacy for the management of bruxism, because they lack randomized controlled clinical studies, and should therefore be considered as a limited treatment modality, since the effect of the splints does not seem to address the cause of bruxism and serves mainly for the management of the signs and symptoms of this disorder (11) (12). Alternative therapies such as relaxation and biofeedback have been proposed for bruxism, especially in cases of daytime bruxism, which are more related to stress and anxiety. (13). There are also studies that support the use of the NTI-tssa device can be used successfully, however, it may present side effects if necessary checks and readjustments are not performed (14). Some medications can be used to decrease bruxing episodes, but some pharmacological treatments may not be safe if used for prolonged periods of time, considering the inherent side effects or risks of dependence (15).