4.6 Article

Oral function in patients with myasthenia gravis

Journal

PEERJ
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11680

Keywords

Myasthenia Gravis; Mastication; Oral function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This pilot study found that patients with myasthenia gravis had more oral complaints and lower bite force compared to healthy controls, but did not show significantly different functional chewing patterns.
Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is characterised by muscle weakness and increased fatigability. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if patients with MG demonstrate different functional chewing patterns and report more complaints related to mastication as compared with healthy controls. Twelve patients (median 60 years Q1-Q3: 46-70) with generalised MG and nine healthy controls (median 57 years Q1-Q3: 55-63) participated. All participants underwent dental and oral examination and were asked to fill in a questionnaire concerning oral health. Static maximum bite force was measured with a bite force transducer, electromyography in the masseter, temporalis, and suprahyoid muscles were recorded, and jaw movement was tracked, during a 5-minute gum chewing test. The patients had more oral complaints (oral health impact profile total score 22.6 vs 7.5 P < 0.01) and had lower peak bite force than controls (18.8kgf (11.1;26.4) (95% CI) vs 29.5 kgf (21.6; 37.4) (P = 0.04)). In contrast, fatigability of the masticatory muscles, as defined by number of chewing cycles during the gum-chewing test, did not differ between patients and controls (P = 0 .10) . In conclusion, patients had more oral complaints and lower bite force than controls, but did not show significantly different functional chewing patterns. Future studies should aim at integrating measurement of peak force into functional tests. Attention should be given to oral complaints of patients with MG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available