Somatisation and Dissociation: A Comparison Study In Bruxers Subgroups

Abstract

de 11,8, 9,6 e 16,3 no grupo com bruxismo e Distúrbios temporomandibulares e de 2,6, 4,8, e 10,4 no controle (Somatização entre os dois grupos p<0,0001 e para dissociação p<0,0001). Os valores em somatização e dissociação foram de 9,6 e 16,3 (grupo experimental p<0,0001) e 4,8 e 10,4 (grupo controle p<0,0001), . Os valores em somatização (6,2, 9,6, 10,7, e 11,8 p=0,0001) e dissociação (10,6,16,4,15,2 e 27,1 p=0,0001) aumentaram no bruxismo mais intensamente que no grupo experimental. Bruxismo, somatisação e dissociação apresentaram correlação positiva. A prevalência de dissociação intensa foi de 16.8%. Conclusão. Os valores em somatização e dissociação nos pacientes com DTMS foram mais altos do que nos controles. As frequências de somatisação e dissociação aumentaram no bruxismo mais intenso. Unitermos ABSTRACTObjective. To assess the frequency of somatisation/dissociation in bruxers and temporomandibular disorders patients, to evaluate the frequencies of somatization and dissociation and to correlates with bruxism Method. We evaluated the the questionnaires for TMDs/ bruxism, clinical examination, the Rief and Hiller´s questionnaire, and the Bernstein and Putnam´s instrument in 137 bruxers (123 female, mean age 35.3) and 31 controls (20 female, mean age 34.9) Sign and symptoms of joint noises, facial or temporomandibular joint pain, tenderness to palpation, difficulties to perform jaw movements, and joint noises were evaluated. Results. Mean scores in bruxism, somatisation and dissociation in bruxers /TMDs were 11. 8, 9.6 and 16.3, and 2,6, 4,8 and 10,4 in the controls. Somatisation and dissociation scores in TMDs and controls were about 9,6 and 16,3 (p=0.0001) and 4,8 and 10,4 (p<0.0001). Scores in somatisation (6,2, 9,6, 10,7, and 11,8; p<0.0001) and dissociation (10,6, 16,4, 15,2, and 27.1; p<0.0001) increased with severer bruxism). Bruxism, Somatisation, and dissociation were positively correlated. The frequency of dissociation was about 16,8. Conclusions. Somatization and dissociation scores in TMD individuals were higher as compared to control ones. The frequencies of somatisation and dissociation increased more severe bruxism, and were positive correlated.

Anger held inward, aggressive dream content in craniomandibular disorders and bruxers

“…As the rage and frustration increased, patients had additional need to control their anger, resulting in more intense bruxism and psychosomatic disorders. The outcome in the current study is additionally supported by one investigation 5 demonstrating that scores in somatization, indicating anger-taken inward are higher in those demonstrating CMDs and BB signs and symptoms.…”

“…Data in the current investigation indicate that aggressive events were reported more frequently in the CMDs and BB group and decreased progressively in the direction of the control non-dysfunctional non BB subgroup. In previous studies CMDs and BB individuals were considered as psychologically/ psychiatrically disturbed 2,5,7 . It may be that CMDs and BB individuals as a group are those characterized by high levels of anxiety, depression, and somatization.…”

“…Sleep bruxism (SB) is defined as a parafunctional and orofacial motor activity encompassing clenching, bracing, gnashing, and grinding of the teeth during sleep 4 . Many CMDs and bruxing behavior (BB) individuals, present somatoform and dissociative disorders (DID) that in some way are related to sleep disorders including nightmares and bad dreams 5 .…”

“…BB is more likely to appear when the individual is facing periods of stress, life dilemmas, anxiety, tension, rage and strangulated aggression which need to be channeled outward in some way 6 . Previous studies have indicated that many CMDs subgroups present with symptoms of psychopathology, including anxiety, depression, somatization and dissociation 5,7 . Some subgroups also present sleep disorders including sleep fragmentation, increased body movements, nightmares and bad dreams associated with their psychopathology.…”

The most commonly used methods of treatment for bruxism – a literature review

“…Previous studies indicated that biofeedback cannot be based on a sleep interrupting stimulus. The stimulus in the form of CES (contingent electrical stimulation) may also cause local effects, including biochemical changes [63,64]. Disadvantages of that type of treatment may comprise increasing fatigue and daytime sleepiness as a result of waking during night rest [65].…”