Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2000
Influence of intra-oral maxillary sports mouthguards on the airflow dynamics of oral breathing.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amis T, Di Somma E, Bacha F, Wheatley J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Mouthguards worn during sporting competition may influence oral airway flow dynamics and potentially increase airflow resistance during mouth breathing.
METHODS: We measured oral airflow resistance (RO) in 10 normal subjects (four men, six women, age 29 +/- 3 yr, mean +/- SEM) wearing two different custom-made maxillary mouthguards.
RESULTS: During tidal mouthpiece breathing (jaw position controlled), inspiratory R(O) (at (1.4 L x s(-1)) increased from 0.22 (0.15-0.46) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (median and interquartile range) to 0.47 (0.24-0.52) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) with mouthguard 1 (general sports mouthguard) and from 0.34 (0.27-0.51) to 0.46 (0.39-0.86) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (N = 8) with mouthguard 2 (laminated, field hockey mouthguard, both P < 0.05). With oral only mask breathing (jaw position not controlled), inspiratory R(O) (at 0.4 L x s(-1)) increased to 1.02 (0.42-1.57) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (P < 0.03, compared with mouthpiece) but was variably affected by both mouthguards. At 1.0 L x s(-1), there was a tendency for both mouthguards to increase inspiratory R(O); however, this effect only reached significance for mouthguard 1 during mouthpiece breathing.
CONCLUSION: Thus, although maxillary mouthguards do increase R(O) when jaw position is controlled, individual subjects respond differently when in control of mouth opening. This may be related to variable recruitment of compensatory mechanisms (e.g. mouth opening and/or oral airway dilator muscle activity).
METHODS: We measured oral airflow resistance (RO) in 10 normal subjects (four men, six women, age 29 +/- 3 yr, mean +/- SEM) wearing two different custom-made maxillary mouthguards.
RESULTS: During tidal mouthpiece breathing (jaw position controlled), inspiratory R(O) (at (1.4 L x s(-1)) increased from 0.22 (0.15-0.46) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (median and interquartile range) to 0.47 (0.24-0.52) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) with mouthguard 1 (general sports mouthguard) and from 0.34 (0.27-0.51) to 0.46 (0.39-0.86) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (N = 8) with mouthguard 2 (laminated, field hockey mouthguard, both P < 0.05). With oral only mask breathing (jaw position not controlled), inspiratory R(O) (at 0.4 L x s(-1)) increased to 1.02 (0.42-1.57) cm H2O x L(-1) x s(-1) (P < 0.03, compared with mouthpiece) but was variably affected by both mouthguards. At 1.0 L x s(-1), there was a tendency for both mouthguards to increase inspiratory R(O); however, this effect only reached significance for mouthguard 1 during mouthpiece breathing.
CONCLUSION: Thus, although maxillary mouthguards do increase R(O) when jaw position is controlled, individual subjects respond differently when in control of mouth opening. This may be related to variable recruitment of compensatory mechanisms (e.g. mouth opening and/or oral airway dilator muscle activity).