Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain

Korean Academy of Orofacial Pain and Oral Medicine (대한안면통증구강내과학회)
권호 표지

Influence of Preferred Chewing Habit on Electromyographic Activity of Masticatory Muscles and Bite Force

편측저작이 저작근의 근활성도와 교합력에 미치는 영향

  • Yang, Ho-Yeon (Dept. of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Shin, Jun-Han (Dept. of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Jong-Hoon (Dept. of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Ahn, Hyoung-Joon (Dept. of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 양호연 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 신준한 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 최종훈 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 안형준 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실)
  • Published : 2005.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As people prefer to use right or left hand, some have preferred chewing side while others do not. Totally, 82 volunteers composed of students and staffs from Dental Hospital College of Dentistry Yonsei University participated in this study for the investigation of influence of preferred chewing habit, that has lasted for more than a year, on electromyographic(EMG) activity of masticatory muscles and bite force. Among the 82 volunteers, 46 had preferred chewing habit while the other 36 did not. Prior to the investigation, those with factors that could affect the study, such as, general disease, irregular dentition and malocclusion, were screened and excluded by questionnaire and clinical examination. The results were as follows: 1. There was no significant difference in EMG activities between chewing side and non-chewing side of preferred chewing subjects at rest as well as maximal voluntary contraction(MCV)(p>0.05). 2. Asymmetrical coefficient of temporal and masseter muscle EMG activities between preferred chewing subjects and non-preferred chewing subjects at rest was not significantly different(p>0.05). 3. Asymmetrical coefficient of masseter EMG activity was significantly higher(p<0.05) than that of non-preferred chewing subjects at MCV, whereas that of anterior temporal muscle showed no difference(p<0.05). 4. In preferred chewing subjects, there was no significant difference in average bite force and occlusal contact area between chewing side and non-chewing side(p>0.05). 5. There was no significant difference in Asymmetrical coefficients of average bite force and occlusal contact area between preferred chewing subjects and non-preferred chewing subjects (p>0.05). Consequently, preferred chewing habit can be considered as physiological asymmetry with normal function rather than to have influence on EMG muscle activity of masticatory muscles, average bite force and occlusal contact area. Objective standardization to differentiate preferred chewing subjects and non-preferred chewing subjects should be established in the further study.

오른손잡이와 왼손잡이가 있듯이 저작도 주로 사용하는 쪽이 있는 편측저작습관자와 양쪽을 다 사용하는 비편측저작자가 있다. 본 연구는 1년 이상 지속된 편측저작습관이 저작근과 턱관절에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자, 연세대학교 치과대학 재학생 및 치과병원 교직원 중 참여하기를 희망하는 편측저작습관자 46명, 비편측저작습관자 36명, 총 82명의 지원자를 대상으로 저작근의 근활성도와 교합력을 검사하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 연구에 앞서 설문 및 임상검사를 통하여 연구에 영향을 끼칠 수 있는 특기할 전신병력이나 불규칙한 치열 및 비정상적인 교합을 가진 자는 배제하였다. 1. 편측저작습관자군에서 안정위와 최대 이악물기(maximal voluntry contraction; MVC)상태에서의 저작측과 비저작측간 근활성도는 차이를 나타내지 않았다 (p>0.05). 2. 안정위 시 전측두근과 교근에서의 근활성도 비대칭 지수는 편측저작습관자군과 비편측저작습관자군 사이에 차이를 나타내지 않았다(p>0.05). 3. 최대 이악물기 시 교근의 근활성도 비대칭 지수는 편측저작습관자군에서 비편측저작습관자군 보다 높게 나타났으며 (p<0.05), 전측두근의 근활성도 비대칭 지수는 편측저작습관자군과 비편측저작습관자군간에 차이를 나타내지 않았다(p>0.05). 4. 편측저작습관자군에서 저작측과 비저작측간의 평균교합력과 교합접촉면적은 차이를 나타내지 않았다(p>0.05). 5. 편측저작습관자군과 비편측저작습관자군간의 평균교합력의 비대칭 지수와 교합접촉면적의 비대칭 지수는 차이를 나타내지 않았다(p>0.05). 이상의 연구결과 편측저작습관은 저작근의 근활성도와 평균교합력 및 교합접촉면적에 영향을 미쳐 변화를 일으키기 보다는, 정상적인 기능을 하는 생리적 비대칭이라고 보는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 향후 연구 시 편측저작자와 비편측저작자를 구분하기위한 객관적인 기준의 제시가 필요하다고 생각한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Nachshon I, Denno D, Aurand S. Lateral preferences on hand, eye and foot:relation to cerebral dominance. Int J Neurosci 1983;18:1-9 https://doi.org/10.3109/00207458308985872
  2. Ruch TC. Neural basis of somatic sensation. In Ruch TC(Ed). Physiology and Biophysics. Philadelphia, 1966, W. B. Saunders, pp. 318-344
  3. Goodwin GM, Luschei ES. Effects of destroying spindle afferents from jaw muscles on mastication in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 1974;37:967 https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1974.37.5.967
  4. Okeson Jeffrey P. 악관절장애와 교합(Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion). 4th ed., 서울, 1999, 군자출판사, pp. 28-48
  5. Lund JP, Lamarre Y. The importance of positive feedback from periodontal pressoreceptors during voluntary isometric contraction of jaw closing muscle in man. J Biol Buccale 1973;1:345-351
  6. Dessem D, Taylor A. Reflex effects of periodontal mechanoreceptors on trigeminal motoneurons in Van Steenberghe D, DeLaat A(Ed). Electromyography of jaw reflexes in man. Leuven, 1989, Leuven University Press, pp. 177-196
  7. Ottenhoff FA, van der Bilt A, van der Glas HW, Bosman F. Peripherally induced and anticipating elevator muscle activity during simulated chewing in humans. J Neurophysiol 1992;67:75-83 https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1992.67.1.75
  8. Christensen LV, Radue JT. Lateral preference in mastication: a feasibility study. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:421-427 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01547.x
  9. Christensen LV, Radue JT. Lateral preference in mastication:an electromyographic study. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:429-434 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01548.x
  10. Christensen LV, Radue JT. Lateral preference in mastication: relation to pain. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:461-467 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01292.x
  11. Pond LH, Barghi N, Barnwell GM. Occlusion and chewing side preference. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:498-500 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90186-1
  12. Kumai Toshifumi. Difference in chewing patterns between involved and opposite sides in patients with unilateral temporomandibular joint and myofascial pain-dysfunction. Archs oral Biol 1993;38(6):467-478 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(93)90182-L
  13. 오민정, 한경수. 스트레스에 의한 구강안면 증상의 발현에 관한 역학적 연구. 구강내과학회지 1997;22(2):359-371
  14. McCarroll RS, Naeije M, Hansson TL. Balance in masticatory muscle activity during natural chewing and submaximal clenching. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16: 441-446 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01363.x
  15. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A. Jr, D'Addona A, Barbini E. Electromyographic activity of human masticatory muscles in normal young people. Statistical evaluation of reference values for clinical applications. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:271-280 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01609.x
  16. Naeije M., McCarroll RS, Weijs WS. Electromyographic activity of human masticatory muscles during submaximal clenching in the inter-cuspal position. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:63-70 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01318.x
  17. Bakke M, Michler L, Moller E. Occlusal control of mandibular elevator muscles. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:284-291
  18. Hidaka O, Iwasaki M, Saito M, Morimoto T. Influence of intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average bite pressure. J Dent Res 1999;78(7):1336-1344 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345990780070801
  19. 남도현, 김광남. 편측저작시 하악골 과두의 응력분포에 관한 삼차원 유한요소분석적 연구. 대한두개하악장애학회지 1996;8(2):21-34
  20. Mohl ND, Lund JP, Widmer CG, McCall WD Jr. Devices for the diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular disorders. PartII : Electromyography and sonography. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(3):332-336 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90207-S
  21. Moyer RE. Temporomandibular muscle contraction patterns in Angle classII division 1 malocclusion : An electromyographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1949;35:836-842
  22. 김경년. 근전도의 원리와 적용. 대한두개하악장애학회지 1999;11(1):35-46
  23. 김윤경, 김인권. 편측성 악관절장애 환자에 대한 근전도 분석. 석사학위 논문, 연세대학교 대학원, 서울, 1996
  24. Ahlgren J: Mechanism of mastication, a quantitative cinematographic and electromyographic study of masticatory movements in children, with special reference to occlusion of the teeth. Acta Odont Scand 1966;24(Suppl 44):1-1
  25. Moller E. The chewing apparatus. An electromyographic study of the action of the muscles of mastication and its correlation to facial morphology. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1996;280:1-229
  26. Naeije M. Zorn H. Estimation of the action potential conduction velocity in human skeletal muscle using the surface EMG cross-correlation technique. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983;23:73-80
  27. Kawazoe Y, Kotani H, Hamada T. Relation between integrated electromyographic activity and biting force during voluntary isometric contraction in human masticatory muscles. J Dent Res 1979;58(5): 1440-1449 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345790580050201
  28. Cooper BC, Rabuzzi DD. Myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome: A clinical study of asymptomatic subjects. Laryngoscope 1984;94:68-75 https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.5540940116
  29. Sheikholeslam A, Moller E, Lous I. Postural and maximal activity in elevators of mandible before and after treatment of functional disorders. Scand J Dent Res 1982;90(1):37-46
  30. Pameijer JH, Glickman I, Roeber FW. Intraoral occlusal telemetry. III. Tooth contacts in chewing, swallowing and bruxism. J Periodontol 1969;40:253-258 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1969.40.5.253
  31. Hoogmartens MJ, Caubergh MA. Chewing side preference in man correlated with handedness, footedness, eyedness and earedness. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;27:293-300
  32. Patyk A, Lotzmann U, Paula JM, Kobes LW. Is the T-scan system a relevant diagnostic method for occlusal control? ZWR 1989;98:686-694
  33. Watanabe M, Hattori Y, Satoh C. Bite force distribution on the dental arch in normal dentitions. In Morimoto T, Matsuya T, Takada K(Ed). Brain and oral functions. Amsterdam and Tokyo, 1995, Elsevier, pp. 399-403
  34. Hellsing G. On the regulation of interincisor bite force in man. J Oral Rehabil 1980;7:403-411 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1980.tb00459.x
  35. Christensen LV, Mohamed SE. Bilateral masseteric contractile activity in unilateral gum chewing: differential calculus. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:638-647 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00905.x