Back to Search
Start Over
Electromyographic analysis of masticatory and neck muscles in subjects with natural dentition, teeth-supported and implant-supported prostheses.
- Source :
-
Clinical Oral Implants Research . Oct2008, Vol. 19 Issue 10, p1081-1088. 8p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts. - Publication Year :
- 2008
-
Abstract
- Objectives: To compare the electromyographic (EMG) characteristics of masticatory and neck muscles in patients with natural dentition, teeth-supported prostheses and implant-supported prostheses. Materials and methods: Twenty-five subjects aged 40–80 years were examined. Five patients had maxillary and mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses; five patients had mandibular implant-supported fixed prosthesis and maxillary removable complete denture; seven patients had implant-supported fixed prosthesis (one arch) and natural dentition or full-arch tooth-fixed prosthesis (one arch); and eight control subjects had natural dentition or single tooth-fixed prostheses. Surface EMG of masseter, temporal and sternocleidomastoid muscles was performed during maximum teeth clenching and unilateral gum chewing. Interarch dental contacts were assessed with shim stocks. Results: All groups had similar interarch dental contacts ( P>0.05). During clenching, patients with maxillary and mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses had unbalanced standardized masseter and temporalis anterior activities (74%), with significantly larger values found in the other patients and control subjects (all mean values larger than 86%, P=0.017). All patients chewed with significantly larger muscular potentials than control subjects (on average, 1434–2100 μV s vs. 980 μV s, P=0.04), and had altered muscular patterns (left side, P=0.021). The patients with one arch with natural dentition/tooth fixed prostheses had chewing muscular patterns similar to the control subjects. Conclusions: Clenching with the analyzed prostheses was performed with a relative increment of temporalis activity. Neuromuscular coordination during chewing was larger in patients who maintained their teeth or dental roots, independently from the number of dental contacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 09057161
- Volume :
- 19
- Issue :
- 10
- Database :
- Academic Search Index
- Journal :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 34293595
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01574.x