Effects of vibratory feedback stimuli through an oral appliance on sleep bruxism: a 6-week intervention trial

• Published in: Sleep & breathing 2022-06, Vol.26 (2), p.949-957
• Main Authors: Ohara, Hironobu, Takaba, Masayuki, Abe, Yuka, Nakazato, Yukari, Aoki, Risa, Yoshida, Yuya, Suganuma, Takeshi, Baba, Kazuyoshi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Dentistry; Dentistry • Original Article; Electromyography; Electromyography - methods; Feedback; Humans; Internal Medicine; Masseter Muscle - physiology; Mastication; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neurology; Oral Appliance Therapy; Otorhinolaryngology; Pediatrics; Pneumology/Respiratory System; Prospective Studies; Sleep; Sleep Bruxism - diagnosis; Sleep Bruxism - therapy
• ISSN: 1520-9512; 1522-1709
• DOI: 10.1007/s11325-021-02460-7

Purpose Various biofeedback stimulation techniques of managing sleep bruxism (SB) have recently emerged; however, the effect of successive application of vibratory feedback stimulation has not been clarified. This study elucidated the effect of vibration feedback stimulation via an oral appliance (OA) on SB when vibration feedback was applied for 4 weeks. Methods This was a prospective, single-arm, open-label, intervention study. Ten participants diagnosed with “definite” SB wore a specially designed OA for 45 nights in a home-setting. A force-based SB detection system, including a pressure-sensitive piezoelectric film placed internally in the OA, triggered a vibrator attached to the OA. Vibratory stimulation was withheld during the first 2-week adaptation period (1st–15th nights), applied during the 4-week stimulation period (16th–43rd nights), and again withheld during the post-stimulation period (44th and 45th nights). The number and duration of SB episodes/hour of sleep were calculated based on masseter electromyographic activity recorded with in-home portable polysomnography and compared between the 15th and 45th nights (without stimulation) and the 17th and 43rd nights (with stimulation). Results The number and duration of SB episodes significantly decreased after vibratory stimulation (15th vs. 17th nights: p  = 0.012 and p  = 0.012, respectively), then significantly increased upon cessation of vibratory stimulation after the stimulation period (43rd vs. 45th nights: p  = 0.023 and p  = 0.023, respectively). Conclusion Contingent vibratory stimulation through an OA may suppress SB-related masticatory muscle activity continuously for 4 weeks and may be an effective alternative for the management of SB. Trial registration https://jrct.niph.go.jp/ ; trial registration number: jRCTs032190225