Effects of Clenching Strength on Exercise Performance: Verification Using Spinal Function Assessments.
H-reflex
M wave
electrical stimulation
electromyography
masseter muscle
Journal
Sports health
ISSN: 1941-0921
Titre abrégé: Sports Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101518422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
1
6
2021
medline:
17
5
2022
entrez:
31
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to determine the relationship between exercise performance and spinal function based on clenching strength. Low-intensity clenching contributes to joint movement, whereas high-intensity clenching contributes to joint fixation. Randomized crossover trial. Level 3. Two experiments were conducted using 2 groups of 20 healthy adults. The 4 clenching conditions in experiment 1 were 0%, 12.5%, 25%, and 50% of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the masseter muscle. Experiment 2 consisted of 3 conditions: no-bite condition, moderate effort, and maximum effort (max condition). In experiment 1, spinal function and ankle dorsiflexion tasks were measured for each clenching condition, and the ankle dorsiflexion task was measured in experiment 2. Regarding spinal function, we measured spinal reciprocal inhibition (RI) and excitability of spinal anterior horn cells. For the ankle dorsiflexion task, ankle dorsiflexion MVC was performed for 3 seconds under each clenching condition. The items analyzed were reaction time, peak ankle dorsiflexion torque, and soleus (Sol)/tibialis anterior (TA) electromyography (EMG) ratio. The results of experiment 1 illustrated that RI was significantly attenuated or eliminated with increasing clenching strength (>25% MVC). Spinal anterior horn cell excitability increased significantly with increasing clenching strength. The peak torque was significantly higher at 50% MVC than that at 0% MVC. In experiment 2, the peak torque was significantly higher under moderate and max conditions than no-bite condition, and the Sol/TA EMG ratio was significantly higher under max condition than that under moderate condition. The results illustrated that during high-strength clenching (≥50% MVC), antagonist muscles are activated simultaneously to increase muscle strength. High-strength clenching improved kinetic performance (joint fixation), whereas low-strength clenching (<50% MVC) enhanced exercise performance (joint movement).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to determine the relationship between exercise performance and spinal function based on clenching strength.
HYPOTHESIS
UNASSIGNED
Low-intensity clenching contributes to joint movement, whereas high-intensity clenching contributes to joint fixation.
STUDY DESIGN
UNASSIGNED
Randomized crossover trial.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
UNASSIGNED
Level 3.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
Two experiments were conducted using 2 groups of 20 healthy adults. The 4 clenching conditions in experiment 1 were 0%, 12.5%, 25%, and 50% of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the masseter muscle. Experiment 2 consisted of 3 conditions: no-bite condition, moderate effort, and maximum effort (max condition). In experiment 1, spinal function and ankle dorsiflexion tasks were measured for each clenching condition, and the ankle dorsiflexion task was measured in experiment 2. Regarding spinal function, we measured spinal reciprocal inhibition (RI) and excitability of spinal anterior horn cells. For the ankle dorsiflexion task, ankle dorsiflexion MVC was performed for 3 seconds under each clenching condition. The items analyzed were reaction time, peak ankle dorsiflexion torque, and soleus (Sol)/tibialis anterior (TA) electromyography (EMG) ratio.
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
The results of experiment 1 illustrated that RI was significantly attenuated or eliminated with increasing clenching strength (>25% MVC). Spinal anterior horn cell excitability increased significantly with increasing clenching strength. The peak torque was significantly higher at 50% MVC than that at 0% MVC. In experiment 2, the peak torque was significantly higher under moderate and max conditions than no-bite condition, and the Sol/TA EMG ratio was significantly higher under max condition than that under moderate condition.
CONCLUSION/CLINICAL RELEVANCE
UNASSIGNED
The results illustrated that during high-strength clenching (≥50% MVC), antagonist muscles are activated simultaneously to increase muscle strength. High-strength clenching improved kinetic performance (joint fixation), whereas low-strength clenching (<50% MVC) enhanced exercise performance (joint movement).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34053343
doi: 10.1177/19417381211014836
pmc: PMC9112714
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
404-414Références
J Neurophysiol. 1971 Nov;34(6):1010-7
pubmed: 4329961
J Physiol. 1987 Aug;389:163-85
pubmed: 3681725
Eur J Neurosci. 2020 Oct;52(8):3929-3943
pubmed: 32511811
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74
pubmed: 11018445
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Dec;237(12):3409-3417
pubmed: 31728595
J Physiol. 1991 Jun;437:269-86
pubmed: 1890635
J Appl Biomech. 2017 Jul;33(3):211-215
pubmed: 27992243
J Orofac Pain. 1999 Spring;13(2):115-20
pubmed: 10425983
J Biomech. 1994 May;27(5):509-16
pubmed: 8027087
Exp Brain Res. 2003 Sep;152(1):133-6
pubmed: 12898091
Front Neurosci. 2018 Jul 24;12:508
pubmed: 30087593
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997 Dec;105(6):470-5
pubmed: 9448649
J Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;83(4):2063-70
pubmed: 10758116
J Exerc Sci Fit. 2018 Apr;16(1):5-11
pubmed: 30662485
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011 Nov-Dec;53(3):338-43
pubmed: 21310498
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Jun;237(6):1469-1478
pubmed: 30899999
Exp Brain Res. 2014 Jan;232(1):181-9
pubmed: 24132527
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1850-4
pubmed: 18978622
Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Nov;123(11):2239-46
pubmed: 22613030
J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Nov;20(4):985-91
pubmed: 17194254
J Physiol. 1971 Jul;215(3):637-64
pubmed: 5090988
Open Dent J. 2016 Aug 31;10:474-485
pubmed: 27708727
Exp Neurol. 1988 Aug;101(2):288-302
pubmed: 3396646
Brain Sci. 2020 Aug 24;10(9):
pubmed: 32847117
Exp Brain Res. 1990;81(1):35-45
pubmed: 2394229
J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Apr;61(2):202-209
pubmed: 27349741
Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Jan 11;12:527
pubmed: 30687045
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct;40(10):1805-9
pubmed: 18799991
Can J Neurol Sci. 1996 Feb;23(1):15-23
pubmed: 8673957
J Physiol. 1992 Oct;456:373-91
pubmed: 1338100
J Med Dent Sci. 1998 Mar;45(1):29-37
pubmed: 12160243
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989 Sep;73(3):233-44
pubmed: 2475328
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jun;24(6):1515-9
pubmed: 20508453
J Physiol. 1988 Nov;405:747-64
pubmed: 2855646
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Dec;237(12):3195-3205
pubmed: 31602493
J Neurophysiol. 1996 Sep;76(3):2033-41
pubmed: 8890312
Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2017 Nov 16;3:1-5
pubmed: 30214998
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Mar;42(3):556-62
pubmed: 19952823
Brain. 2000 Aug;123 ( Pt 8):1688-702
pubmed: 10908198
Mov Disord. 2000 Sep;15(5):830-4
pubmed: 11009187
Nature. 1997 Oct 23;389(6653):870-6
pubmed: 9349821