MacKechnie-Guire Russell, Murray Rachel, Williams Jane M, Nixon Jane, Fisher Mark, Fisher Diane, Walker Vicki, Clayton Hilary M
Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.
Rossdales Veterinary Surgeons, Suffolk, UK.
Equine Vet J. 2025 May;57(3):774-788. doi: 10.1111/evj.14420. Epub 2024 Sep 21.
Poor noseband adjustment could create high pressures that may risk pain or tissue damage.
To quantify sub-noseband pressures dorsally over the nasal bone and ventrally over the mandibular rami for a Cavesson, Swedish (crank), Drop and Flash noseband at five tightness levels (2.0 to 0.0 finger equivalents).
In vivo experiments.
Eight high-level dressage horses were ridden at the trot in a straight line by their usual riders. Two small pressure mats, attached to the noseband over the nasal bone and the mandibular rami, collected force (N) and pressure (kPa) data from four noseband types (Cavesson/Swedish/Flash/Drop) each adjusted to five tightness levels (2.0/1.5/1.0/0.5/0.0 finger equivalents) based on the use of a taper gauge. Noseband tightness and types were compared using Friedman's analyses with post hoc Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ 0.01).
Pressures (median and [25th and 75th percentiles]) and forces increased with tightness for all noseband types with higher mean pressures consistently recorded on the mandibles (Cavesson: 9.1 [5.0, 12.5] kPa, Swedish: 10.5 [6.3, 14.9] kPa, Flash: 8.0 [3.6, 15.2] kPa) than the nasal bones (Cavesson: 2.8 [1.1, 4.7] kPa, Swedish: 4.3 [3.1, 7.4] kPa, Flash: 4.9 [3.0, 7.3] kPa, p ≤ 0.002). None of the measured nasal pressures or forces differed significantly between tightness levels of 2.0 (1.6 [0.6, 3.6] kPa) and 1.5 fingers (2.9 [1.3, 4.1] kPa), but these values significantly increased from 1.0 (3.1 [1.5, 4.9] kPa), 0.5 (4.2 [2.3, 6.2] kPa), and 0.0 finger tightness (6.4 [3.8, 10.3] kPa) for most variables (p ≤ 0.004). No differences were found in mean/maximal nasal and mandibular pressures when fitted with a Cavesson or Swedish noseband.
Behavioural and physiological parameters were not measured.
Nasal and mandibular pressures increased with noseband tightness, with 1.0 finger laxity or less associated with significantly and incrementally higher pressures than 1.5 or 2.0 finger tightness.
鼻革调整不当会产生高压，可能导致疼痛或组织损伤。
量化卡韦松式、瑞典式（曲柄式）、水滴式和闪式鼻革在五种松紧度水平（2.0至0.0手指当量）下，鼻骨背侧和下颌支腹侧的鼻革下压力。
体内实验。
八匹高级盛装舞步马由其常任骑手在直线上进行快步骑行。两个小压力垫分别附着在鼻骨和下颌支上方的鼻革上，收集四种鼻革类型（卡韦松式/瑞典式/闪式/水滴式）在基于锥度规调整至五种松紧度水平（2.0/1.5/1.0/0.5/0.0手指当量）时的力（N）和压力（kPa）数据。使用弗里德曼分析及事后威尔科克森检验（p≤0.01）比较鼻革的松紧度和类型。
所有鼻革类型的压力（中位数及[第25和第75百分位数]）和力均随松紧度增加，下颌骨上始终记录到的平均压力更高（卡韦松式：9.1[5.0,12.5]kPa，瑞典式：10.5[6.3,14.9]kPa，闪式：8.0[3.6,15.2]kPa），高于鼻骨（卡韦松式：2.8[1.1,4.7]kPa，瑞典式：4.3[3.1,7.4]kPa，闪式：4.9[3.0,7.3]kPa，p≤0.002）。在2.0（1.6[0.6,3.6]kPa）和1.5手指（2.9[1.3,4.1]kPa）的松紧度水平之间，所测鼻压力或力均无显著差异，但对于大多数变量，这些值从1.0（3.1[1.5,4.9]kPa）、0.5（4.2[2.3,6.2]kPa）和0.0手指松紧度（6.4[3.8,10.3]kPa）时显著增加（p≤0.004）。佩戴卡韦松式或瑞典式鼻革时，平均/最大鼻压力和下颌压力无差异。
未测量行为和生理参数。
鼻革压力随鼻革松紧度增加，1.0手指松弛度及以下与显著高于1.5或2.0手指紧度的压力显著且逐渐增加相关。
