Cruz-Reyes René A, Martínez-Aragón Ivette, Guerrero-Arias Rafael E, García-Zura David A, González-Sánchez Luis E
Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2011;24(1):66-74.
The aim of this study is to assess the electrical activity generated in temporal and masseter muscles during voluntary muscular contraction of patients with bruxism, as a result of the use of two types of occlusal splints (occlusal stabilization splint and soft occlusal splint) in which 2 groups of 8 patients were evaluated -12 women and four men aged 19 to 40 years, who used a single type of occlusal splint for 46 to 60 days. The splints were made from sheets of rigid acetate plus heat-cured acrylic (occlusal stabilization splint, control group) and sheets of flexible acetate (soft occlusal splint, experimental group). Two electromyographic tests (EMG) were performed on each patient; one before placing the splint and another at the end of the treatment. The statistical analysis used was computerized variance ANOVA analysis with F distribution (P < or = 0.025). In the control group, muscle electrical activity increased significantly in 5 patients and decreased slightly in 3. In the experimental group, there was considerable reduction of such activity in 6 patients and a slight increase in 2. There is a statistically significant difference (P < or = 0.025) between the muscle electrical activity generated in the control group and in the experimental group. The increase in muscle electrical activity in the control group may have been due to a neuromuscular recovery process; while the decrease in the experimental group might have been due to a negative or decremental process of muscular organization to prevent the recruitment of new motor units. Occlusal stabilization splints are therefore considered better than soft occlusal splints.
本研究旨在评估磨牙症患者在使用两种类型的咬合板(咬合稳定板和软质咬合板)进行自主肌肉收缩时颞肌和咬肌产生的电活动。本研究对两组各8名患者进行了评估,其中包括12名女性和4名年龄在19至40岁之间的男性,他们使用单一类型的咬合板46至60天。咬合稳定板(对照组)由硬质醋酸酯片加热固化丙烯酸制成,软质咬合板(实验组)由柔性醋酸酯片制成。对每位患者进行了两项肌电图测试(EMG);一项在佩戴咬合板前进行,另一项在治疗结束时进行。所采用的统计分析是使用F分布的计算机方差分析(P≤0.025)。在对照组中,5名患者的肌肉电活动显著增加,3名患者略有下降。在实验组中,6名患者的此类活动大幅减少,2名患者略有增加。对照组和实验组产生的肌肉电活动之间存在统计学显著差异(P≤0.025)。对照组肌肉电活动的增加可能是由于神经肌肉恢复过程;而实验组的减少可能是由于肌肉组织的负性或递减过程,以防止新运动单位的募集。因此,咬合稳定板被认为优于软质咬合板。