Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2024
Comparison of force profiles from two musculoskeletal palpation methods: A methodological study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pillai Rajath Sasidharan, Kothari Simple Futarmal, Svensson Peter, Castrillon Eduardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) protocol recommends a 5 s and 1 kg force dynamic palpation around the lateral condylar pole of the temporomandibular joint. However, the accuracy and precision of the generated force are not known.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the force profiles generated from dynamic palpation manually and using a palpometer, based on the forces and time recommendations suggested by the DC/TMD protocol.
METHODS: Nineteen healthy adults applied forces of 0.5 kg, 1.0 kg and 2.0 kg on a calibrated force sensor in a circular motion within target times of 2 s and 5 s. Participants used their right index finger for manual palpation and a calibrated palpometer for device-assisted palpation. Ten repetitions of each target force at both target times were applied. Time taken to complete each application was recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for analysis of accuracy measured as the relative difference between targeted force and actual force values and precision measured as the coefficient of variation (CV) within the 10 repeated measurements.
RESULTS: Accuracy was significantly lower (better) and precision higher (lower CV) with the palpometer than with manual palpation (p < .001). There were significant differences in accuracy and precision between the different forces but not palpation times. Most participants could not achieve the target times and tended to be faster, irrespective of the palpation method (p > .063).
CONCLUSION: A palpometer is a more accurate and precise palpation method for dynamic force assessment compared to manual palpation; however, it remains difficult to standardize the palpation duration.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the force profiles generated from dynamic palpation manually and using a palpometer, based on the forces and time recommendations suggested by the DC/TMD protocol.
METHODS: Nineteen healthy adults applied forces of 0.5 kg, 1.0 kg and 2.0 kg on a calibrated force sensor in a circular motion within target times of 2 s and 5 s. Participants used their right index finger for manual palpation and a calibrated palpometer for device-assisted palpation. Ten repetitions of each target force at both target times were applied. Time taken to complete each application was recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for analysis of accuracy measured as the relative difference between targeted force and actual force values and precision measured as the coefficient of variation (CV) within the 10 repeated measurements.
RESULTS: Accuracy was significantly lower (better) and precision higher (lower CV) with the palpometer than with manual palpation (p < .001). There were significant differences in accuracy and precision between the different forces but not palpation times. Most participants could not achieve the target times and tended to be faster, irrespective of the palpation method (p > .063).
CONCLUSION: A palpometer is a more accurate and precise palpation method for dynamic force assessment compared to manual palpation; however, it remains difficult to standardize the palpation duration.