4.3 Review

Efficacy of botulinum toxins on bruxism: an evidence-based review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL DENTAL JOURNAL
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 1-5

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2011.00085.x

Keywords

Botulinum toxins; bruxism; systematic review; tooth clenching; tooth grinding

Funding

  1. NSFC (National Natural Science Foundation of China) [81070858]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of botulinum toxins on bruxism. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Science Citation Index), websites (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov) and the literature database of SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) were searched from January 1990 to April 2011 for randomised controlled trials or nonrandomised studies assessing the efficacy of botulinum toxins on bruxism. There was no language restriction. Through a predefined search strategy, we retrieved 28 studies from PubMed, 94 from Embase, 60 from the Science Citation Index, two ongoing clinical trials and two from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Of these, only four studies met our inclusion criteria and were finally included. Of the four included studies, two were randomised controlled trials and two were controlled before-and-after studies. These studies showed that botulinum toxin injections can reduce the frequency of bruxism events, decrease bruxism-induced pain levels and satisfy patients self-assessment with regard to the effectiveness of botulinum toxins on bruxism. In comparison with oral splint, botulinum toxins are equally effective on bruxism. Furthermore, botulinum toxin injections at a dosage of <100 U are safe for otherwise healthy patients. Botulinum toxin injections are effective on bruxism and are safe to use. Therefore, they can be used clinically for otherwise healthy patients with bruxism.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available