Jordi Padros-Auge - Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Central de Catalunya – Universitat de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain
Zayane Nouhaila - Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Central de Catalunya – Universitat de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain
Cano Miquel - Master of Medicine, Surgery and Oral Implantology – Universitat de Barcelona, Campus Bellvitge, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
Albert Morales-Vigo - Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Central de Catalunya – Universitat de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain
Castro Sebastién - Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Central de Catalunya – Universitat de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain
Parathias Laurine - Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Central de Catalunya – Universitat de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain

AbstractBackground: A scoping review was conducted to explore all the methods and criteria used in primary research on bruxism diagnosis.Methods: A pre-defined and validated search was carried out in the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, PeDro, LILACS, and Epistemonikos databases. Primary studies conducted on bruxism as primary condition in the adult population were included. The selection phases were carried out by peers, and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer or by consensus. Data extraction and manual tracing were done in order to identify the relevant studies.Results: The search and selection strategy identified ۴۷۲ publications, and after manual tracing, ۴۲۳ studies were selected for analysis. The results on diagnostic methods were grouped into ۱۰ categories. Different subcategories were described within these categories, resulting in a total of ۷۳ diagnostic methods: physical examination (n=۱۱), questionnaires (n=۱۲), polysomnography (n=۱۳), electromyography (n=۵), the International Classification for Sleep Disorders from the American Association of Sleep Medicine (ICSD-AASM) (n=۳), intraoral devices (n=۱۰), history (n=۷), audio-video recordings (n=۳), smartphone applications (n=۲), and others (n=۷). In addition, the combinations of methods used in the primary research were also analyzed. The prevalence of use was calculated for all diagnostic categories and subcategories, as well as for the combinations.Conclusion: There was high heterogeneity in primary research regarding the diagnosis of bruxism. There is evidence that not all diagnostic methods are properly validated. Future research should focus on

Keywords: Bruxism, scoping review, bruxism diagnose