Page 34 - SPEMD_59-1

26 rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac. 2018;59(1):24-29

1
nature is a limitation. To date, there is no consensus on which and used for this study. Bruxism data were collected using two
questionnaire would be the most appropriate for the diagnosis self-reporting questionnaires on bruxism (Figures 1 and 2). 2,12
of bruxism or for comparative studies of different self-report- The patients’ categorical responses (“yes,” “no,” “I do not
ing instruments. Consistency between the existing self-report- know”) to each question of the two questionnaires were com-
ing questionnaires on bruxism may allow this method to pro- puted as described in the original papers. The criteria estab-
vide potentially useful information for research and daily lished in each of the questionnaires were used to determine
12
clinical practices. Therefore, this study aimed to compare two the presence or absence of bruxism. In Q1, the result was
self-reporting questionnaires for diagnosing bruxism, by test- positive for bruxism when the patient responded positively to
ing if there is agreement between the two questionnaires. question 1 and/or question 2 and gave at least one positive
2
response to one of the symptoms listed in question 3. In Q2,
the result was positive for bruxism when the answer was pos-
Materials and methods itive to two out of the four existing questions.
Two diagnoses of “possible” bruxism were obtained for
This cross-sectional and correlational study used a data- each patient using Q1 and Q2. The number of patients with a
base derived from two clinical research projects on im- positive diagnosis, the number of patients with a negative di-
plant-supported prostheses, which were approved by the agnosis, and the number of patients with the same diagnosis
institutional ethics committee of the Pontifical Catholic in both questionnaires were calculated. The questionnaires
University of Rio Grande do Sul, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and were translated from English into the local language (Portu-
registered in a National System of Information on Ethics for guese) and revised by a language expert (Appendixes 1 and 2).
Research in Humans. Data were statistically analyzed by descriptive statistics,
The non-probabilistic consecutive sample was selected and Cohen’s kappa coefficient was used to assess agreement
among adult patients treated from 2010 to 2016. Data from 65 between Q1 and Q2. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient result was
adult patients (42 women) were obtained from the database interpreted as follows: values ≤ 0 as indicating no agreement

Figure 1. Questionnaire 1 (Q1) used in this study and based on the article by Winocur et al.
(2010). 12