{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02847222222222222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007638888888888889, 'mean_word_length': 5.238095238095238, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Therapies for sleep bruxism in dentistry: A critical evaluation of systematic reviews.

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.