Correlation between masseter muscle activity and maximum bite force among various facial divergence pattern.
Abstract
Objective: To comparatively assess electromyographic (EMG) activity of masseter muscle and maximum bite force among various facial divergence pattern. To compare bilateral variation therefore derive the clinical importance changes in masseter EMG activity. Materials and Methods: The sample size comprised of 90 subjects, age ranging from 16-25 years. They were further classified under three subgroups-normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergennt based on the cephalometric values. Tekscan Flexiforce B201H sensor along with the associated software was used to record the bite force. The EMG of the superficial masseter muscle was recorded using Biotech Neurocare 2000 surface electromyography machine. The muscle activity was recorded bilaterally from the superficial masseter. The data obtained were statistically analyzed using ROC curve at p<0.05. Results: The bite force of the Hypodivergent group (571.83N±36.65) was more than the Normodivergent (387.26±27.20) and Hyperdivergent groups (373.21N±29.23). The EMG recording of masseter muscle activity in Hypodivergent group was significantly higher than Normodivergent and Hyperdivergent groups. (p-value= <0.01). A significant correlation existed between masseter activity and bite force. Conclusion: The bite force of Hypodivergent jaw base individuals is highest followed by Normodivergent and least in Hyperdivergent individuals.The strong correlation between the muscular activity and the bite force is definitely a contributor to the anchorage value during treatment by fixed Orthodontics.
References
2. Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JW, Marcotte MR, Hönigle K, Johnson BE. A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(4):261–4.
3. Ingervall B, Minder C. Correlation between maximum bite force and facial morphology in children. Angle Orthod. 1997;67(6):415–22.
4. Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogressive therapy. Part 6. J Clin Orthod. 1978;12(2):123–39.
5. Pepicelli A, Woods M, Briggs C. The mandibular muscles and their importance in orthodontics: a contemporary review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(6):774–80.
6. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1946;32:175–230.
7. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics In Clinical Practice. The Angle Orthodontist. Angle Orthod. 1959;29(1):8–29.
8. Ahlgren J, Sonesson B, Blitz M. An electromyographic analysis of the temporalis function of normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1985;87(3):230–9.
9. Lund JP, Widmer CG. Evaluation of the use of surface electromyography in the diagnosis, documentation, and treatment of dental patients. J Craniomandib Disord. 1989;3(3):125–37.
10. Alarcón JA, Martín C, Palma JC. Effect of unilateral posterior crossbite on the electromyographic activity of human masticatory muscles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(3):328–34.
11. Beyazova M, Gökçe-Kutsal Y. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon. Ankara: Güneş Tıp Kitabevleri; 2016.
12. Ringqvist M. Isometric bite force and its relation to dimensions of the facial skeleton. Acta Odontol Scand. 1973;31(1):35– 42.
13. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Nixon WL. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face adults. J Dent Res. 1983;62(5):566–70.
14. van Spronsen PH. Long-Face Craniofacial Morphology: Cause or Effect of Weak Masticatory Musculature? Semin Orthod. 2010;16(2):99–117.
15. Bakke M, Holm B, Jensen BL, Michler L, Möller E. Unilateral, isometric bite force in 8-68-year-old women and men related to occlusal factors. Scand J Dent Res. 1990;98(2):149–58.
16. Bakke M, Michler L. Temporalis and masseter muscle activity in patients with anterior open bite and craniomandibular disorders. Scand J Dent Res. 1991;99(3):219–28.
17. Raadsheer MC, van Eijden TM, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Contribution of jaw muscle size and craniofacial morphology to human bite force magnitude. J Dent Res. 1999;78(1):31–42.
18. Kayukawa H. Malocclusion and masticatory muscle activity: a comparison of four types of malocclusion. J Clin Ped iat r Dent. 1992;16(3):162 –77.
19. Benington PC, Gardener JE, Hunt NP. Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(6):659–70.
20. Gionhaku N, Lowe AA. Relationship Between Jaw Muscle Volume and Craniofacial Form. J Dent Res. 1989;68(5):805–80.
21. Haskell B, Day M, Tetz J. Computer-aided modeling in the assessment of the biomechanical determinants of diverse skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod. 1981;89(5):363–82.
22. Ueda HM, Miyamoto K, Saifuddin M, Ishizuka Y, Tanne K. Masticatory muscle activity in children and adults with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(1):63–8.
23. Arat FE, Arat ZM, Acar M, Beyazova M, Tompson B. Muscular and condylar response to rapid maxillary expansion. Part 1: electromyographic study of anterior temporal and superficial masseter muscles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(6):815–22.
Keywords
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
