SummaryIn 2013, consensus was obtained on a definition of bruxism as repetitive masticatory muscle activity characterised by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible and specified as either sleep bruxism or awake bruxism. In addition, a grading system was proposed to determine the likelihood that a certain assessment of bruxism actually yields a valid outcome. This study discusses the need for an updated consensus and has the following aims: (i) to further clarify the 2013 definition and to develop separate definitions for sleep and awake bruxism; (ii) to determine whether bruxism is a disorder rather than a behaviour that can be a risk factor for certain clinical conditions; (iii) to re-examine the 2013 grading system; and (iv) to develop a research agenda. It was concluded that: (i) sleep and awake bruxism are masticatory muscle activities that occur during sleep (characterised as rhythmic or non-rhythmic) and wakefulness (characterised by repetitive or sustained tooth contact and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible), respectively; (ii) in otherwise healthy individuals, bruxism should not be considered as a disorder, but rather as a behaviour that can be a risk (and/or protective) factor for certain clinical consequences; (iii) both non-instrumental approaches (notably self-report) and instrumental approaches (notably electromyography) can be employed to assess bruxism; and (iv) standard cut-off points for establishing the presence or absence of bruxism should not be used in otherwise healthy individuals; rather, bruxism­related masticatory muscle activities should be assessed in the behaviour’s continuum.

This commentary discusses the need to move on from the adoption of cut‐off points for the definition of the presence/absence of bruxism and justifies the need to embrace an evaluation based on the continuum of jaw motor behaviours. Currently, the number of events per hour, as identified by polysomnography (PSG), is used to define the presence of sleep bruxism (SB). Whilst PSG still remains the indispensable equipment to study the neurophysiological correlates of SB, the scoring criteria based on a cut‐off point are of questionable clinical usefulness for the study of oral health outcomes. For awake bruxism (AB), criteria for a definite diagnosis have never been proposed. Some goal‐oriented strategies are proposed to identify bruxism behaviours that increase the risk of negative oral health outcomes (eg, tooth wear, muscle and/or temporomandibular joint [TMJ] pain, restorative complications). One possible strategy would embrace an improved knowledge on the epidemiology and natural variability of bruxism, even including study of the amount of PSG/SB and electromyography masticatory muscle activity (EMG/MMA) during sleep and the frequency/prevalence of bruxism behaviours during wakefulness that are needed to represent a risk factor for clinical consequences, if any. There should not be any preclusion about the diagnostic strategies to pursue that goal, and a combination of instrumental and non‐instrumental approaches may even emerge as the best available option. Once data are available, large‐scale, non‐selected population samples representing the entire continuum of EMG/MMA activities are also needed, in the attempt to estimate untreated health risks in the population.