4.4 Article

Fatigue and pain in human jaw muscles during a sustained, low-intensity clenching task

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 773-777

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9969(01)00028-0

关键词

fatigue; pain; electromyography; trigeminal physiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fatigue, pain and changes in the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the jaw-closing muscles are well documented during short, high-intensity tooth-clenching tasks but less so during sustained, low-intensity tasks. In this study, 11 healthy men clenched on a bite-force meter for 60 min at 10% of the maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and scored the intensity of fatigue and pain on separate 10 cm visual analogue scales (VAS). Surface EMG activity from the masseter and anterior temporalis muscles was recorded in 10 s epochs every 5 min throughout the task. Pressure-gain thresholds (PPTs) in the jaw-closing muscles, unassisted maximum jaw opening and MVC were determined before and after the task. All participants reported an increasing sensation of fatigue in the jaw-closing muscles during the task (mean +/- SD: peak VAS = 7.5 +/- 2.0 cm) but all were able to maintain the required force. Most (7/11) also reported a painful sensation (peak VAS = 2.7 +/- 2.8 cm). The jaw-opening capacity (59.5 +/- 7.4 vs. 58.3 +/- 6.5 mm, P = 0.031) and the MVC (777 +/- 73 vs. 652 +/- 115 N, P = 0.002) were slightly, but significantly, decreased immediately after the task whereas the PPTs remained unchanged (ANOVA: P = 0.612). The mean frequency of the EMG activity decreased in all muscles during the task (95.7 vs. 46.6 Hz; P < 0.001), and the root mean squares increased (53.2 vs. 154 muV, P < 0.001). The changes in EMG activity were more strongly correlated with the sensation of fatigue than pain. These findings demonstrate that a sustained, low-intensity clenching task can induce subjective and electrophysiological indications of fatigue. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据