BioMed research international · 2021
Surface Electromyography (sEMG) Activity of Masticatory Muscle (Masseter and Temporalis) with Three Different Types of Orthodontic Bracket.
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.
Nishi Shamima E, Rahman Norma Ab, Basri Rehana, Alam Mohammad K, Noor Nor Farid M, Zainal Siti Aishah, Husein Adam
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This pre-post study is aimed at determining the effects of masticatory muscle activity (masseter and temporalis) measured via sEMG between conventional, self-ligating, and ceramic bracket after six months of orthodontic treatment.
METHODS: A total of eighteen (18) malocclusion patients were identified. Malocclusion patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on the bracket selection (conventional, self-ligating, and ceramic bracket) with 6 patients for each group. sEMG of muscles were done using a two-channel electromyography device, where pregelled and self-adhesive electrodes (bilateral) were applied. Chewing and clenching of masseter and temporalis muscle activity were recorded for 20 s pre and 6 months of orthodontic treatment using sEMG (frequency 60 Hz). The data were analysed by using repeated measures ANOVA in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0.
RESULTS: Chewing and clenching for masseter muscle showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in sEMG activity of three types of the brackets. However, for temporalis muscle, there was a significant difference found in sEMG activity during chewing (P < 0.05) and clenching (P < 0.05) between these three brackets.
CONCLUSION: The activity of temporalis muscle showed significant changes in chewing and clenching, where the conventional group demonstrated better muscle activity pre and at six months of fixed appliances.
METHODS: A total of eighteen (18) malocclusion patients were identified. Malocclusion patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on the bracket selection (conventional, self-ligating, and ceramic bracket) with 6 patients for each group. sEMG of muscles were done using a two-channel electromyography device, where pregelled and self-adhesive electrodes (bilateral) were applied. Chewing and clenching of masseter and temporalis muscle activity were recorded for 20 s pre and 6 months of orthodontic treatment using sEMG (frequency 60 Hz). The data were analysed by using repeated measures ANOVA in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0.
RESULTS: Chewing and clenching for masseter muscle showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in sEMG activity of three types of the brackets. However, for temporalis muscle, there was a significant difference found in sEMG activity during chewing (P < 0.05) and clenching (P < 0.05) between these three brackets.
CONCLUSION: The activity of temporalis muscle showed significant changes in chewing and clenching, where the conventional group demonstrated better muscle activity pre and at six months of fixed appliances.