Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the concordance of sleep bruxism (SB) between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins.
METHODS: The registration for this systematic review was accomplished in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No. CRD42021251751). As of July 2022, four databases were searched, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as the grey literature in Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Observational studies evaluating SB in MZ and DZ twins of any age and sex were included. For the evaluation of the risk of bias, the Joanna Briggs checklist was utilized. The certainty of evidence was assessed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Pooled and subgroup meta-analyses were performed to estimate concordance of SB between twins (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: In total, 3,155 records were identified. In the qualitative analysis, eleven studies were included; of these, seven were included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the articles exhibited a low risk of bias (63.6%). Greater SB concordance was observed between MZ twins than between DZ twins in the analysis of general concordance (OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.07-2.02) and also positive concordance (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.29-1.81). Within the subgroup analyses, the significance of the findings remained only for the reported/self-reported SB regarding general concordance (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.07-1.95) and positive concordance (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.28-1.88). Low certainty of the evidence was observed for the general concordance analysis, while moderate certainty was observed for the positive concordance.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher concordance of SB in MZ twins compared to DZ twins, indicating a possible genetic influence on the condition\'s occurrence.
METHODS: The registration for this systematic review was accomplished in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No. CRD42021251751). As of July 2022, four databases were searched, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as the grey literature in Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Observational studies evaluating SB in MZ and DZ twins of any age and sex were included. For the evaluation of the risk of bias, the Joanna Briggs checklist was utilized. The certainty of evidence was assessed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Pooled and subgroup meta-analyses were performed to estimate concordance of SB between twins (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: In total, 3,155 records were identified. In the qualitative analysis, eleven studies were included; of these, seven were included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the articles exhibited a low risk of bias (63.6%). Greater SB concordance was observed between MZ twins than between DZ twins in the analysis of general concordance (OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.07-2.02) and also positive concordance (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.29-1.81). Within the subgroup analyses, the significance of the findings remained only for the reported/self-reported SB regarding general concordance (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.07-1.95) and positive concordance (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.28-1.88). Low certainty of the evidence was observed for the general concordance analysis, while moderate certainty was observed for the positive concordance.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher concordance of SB in MZ twins compared to DZ twins, indicating a possible genetic influence on the condition\'s occurrence.
摘要：
目的：系统回顾有关单卵（MZ）和二卵（DZ）双胞胎之间睡眠磨牙症（SB）一致性的文献。
方法：此系统评价的注册是在国际系统评价前瞻性注册（PROSPERO，不。CRD42021251751)。截至2022年7月，搜索了四个数据库，包括PubMed,Scopus,Embase,和WebofScience,以及谷歌学者和OpenGrey中的灰色文献。包括评估任何年龄和性别的MZ和DZ双胞胎中SB的观察性研究。对于偏差风险的评估，JoannaBriggs的检查表被利用了.通过建议分级评估来评估证据的确定性，发展,和评估（等级）系统。进行了汇总和亚组荟萃分析，以估计双胞胎之间SB的一致性（p<0.05）。
结果：总计，确定了3,155条记录。在定性分析中,包括11项研究；其中，7例纳入荟萃分析.大多数文章表现出低偏倚风险(63.6%)。在总体一致性分析（OR=1.47；95％CI=1.07-2.02）和正一致性分析中，MZ双胞胎之间的SB一致性高于DZ双胞胎之间（OR=1.53；95％CI=1.29-1.81）。在亚组分析中，仅对于报告/自我报告的SB在总体一致性(OR=1.44;95%CI=1.07~1.95)和正一致性(OR=1.55;95%CI=1.28~1.88)方面的显著性仍然存在.在一般一致性分析中观察到证据的确定性低，而对于正一致性观察到中等确定性。
结论：与DZ双胞胎相比，MZ双胞胎中SB的一致性更高，表明可能的遗传影响条件的发生。
方法：此系统评价的注册是在国际系统评价前瞻性注册（PROSPERO，不。CRD42021251751)。截至2022年7月，搜索了四个数据库，包括PubMed,Scopus,Embase,和WebofScience,以及谷歌学者和OpenGrey中的灰色文献。包括评估任何年龄和性别的MZ和DZ双胞胎中SB的观察性研究。对于偏差风险的评估，JoannaBriggs的检查表被利用了.通过建议分级评估来评估证据的确定性，发展,和评估（等级）系统。进行了汇总和亚组荟萃分析，以估计双胞胎之间SB的一致性（p<0.05）。
结果：总计，确定了3,155条记录。在定性分析中,包括11项研究；其中，7例纳入荟萃分析.大多数文章表现出低偏倚风险(63.6%)。在总体一致性分析（OR=1.47；95％CI=1.07-2.02）和正一致性分析中，MZ双胞胎之间的SB一致性高于DZ双胞胎之间（OR=1.53；95％CI=1.29-1.81）。在亚组分析中，仅对于报告/自我报告的SB在总体一致性(OR=1.44;95%CI=1.07~1.95)和正一致性(OR=1.55;95%CI=1.28~1.88)方面的显著性仍然存在.在一般一致性分析中观察到证据的确定性低，而对于正一致性观察到中等确定性。
结论：与DZ双胞胎相比，MZ双胞胎中SB的一致性更高，表明可能的遗传影响条件的发生。
