This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Proeschel, P.A. Articles by Morneburg, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Proeschel, P.A. Articles by Morneburg, T. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Task-dependence of Activity/ Bite-force Relations and its Impact on Estimation of Chewing Force from EMG

Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinic, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Glueckstrasse 11, D 91054 Erlangen, Germany;

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Examples of activity/bite-force relations in two selected patients with the activity used as the independent variable. Fest and Fme denote estimated and measured chewing forces. Patient A: Working-side masseter (mass. ws) showing a strong correlation in clenching on the bite-fork (r = 0.96) but a weak one in chewing (r = 0.6). The mean activity/bite-force ratio was higher in chewing (0.45 µV/N) than in clenching (0.23 µV/N), resulting in overestimation of chewing force (613 N) when the mean chewing activity (128 µV) was substituted into the activity/bite-force regression of clenching. Dashed arrows elucidate the estimation procedure. Balancing-side masseter (mass. bs) showed good correlations and almost equal activity/bite-force ratios (0.41 µV/N, 0.39 µV/N) in both biting tasks. Hence, the estimated chewing force deviated by only about 5% from the measured force. Patient B: Weak correlations in chewing because of missing small forces. However, in both muscles, activities per unit bite-force in the 2 biting tasks were similar, resulting in fairly correct force estimations.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Group means and standard errors (N = 9) of activity/bite-force ratios for each muscle. Data next to the arrows indicate the factor by which the activity/bite-force ratio in chewing exceeded the activity/bite-force ratio in clenching. Since the bite-force cancels out, these factors also indicate the chewing/clenching ratios of the absolute activities. Abbreviations: mass = masseter, temp = temporalis, ws = working side, bs = balancing side.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Actually measured masticatory forces with standard errors and forces estimated from the chewing activities of the 4 muscles in all subjects. Patients are arranged according to ascending values of measured forces (connected for the sake of clarity). The right-most compartment shows group means and standard errors (N = 9) of measured and estimated chewing forces. Patients #8 and #3 correspond to patient A and patient B of Fig. 1. Standard errors of measured forces are based on the number of chewing cycles performed during the recording period. The number of cycles varied interindividually between N = 12 and N = 32. Estimated forces have no error bars, because only one value could be obtained per patient and muscle. Abbreviations: est = estimated chewing force, mass = masseter, temp = temporalis, ws = working side, bs = balancing side.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 81, No. 7, 464-468 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100706


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?