A Comparative Electromyographic Analysis of Masticatory Muscles Between Skeletal Class II and Skeletal Class I Malocclusion: A Cross-Sectional Study on a Syrian Population.
digastric muscle
electromyography (emg)
masseter muscle
muscular activity
perioral muscles
skeletal class i malocclusion
skeletal class ii malocclusion
temporal muscle
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Historique:
accepted:
09
02
2024
medline:
12
2
2024
pubmed:
12
2
2024
entrez:
12
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in the muscular activity of the masticatory muscles between patients with skeletal Class II and skeletal Class I malocclusion. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a sample of 56 selected patients referred to the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria. An electromyographic device measured the myoelectric activity of the perioral muscles on patients in the two created groups: the skeletal Class I malocclusion group (n=28 patients) and the skeletal Class II malocclusion group (n=28 patients). The study found a similarity in the muscular activity between the right and left sides within the same group, without significant differences between both sides for each muscle (P>0.05). The Class II group had significantly greater activity in the buccinator and digastric muscles than the Class I group (p<0.05). On the other hand, the Class I group had significantly greater activity in the orbicularis and mentalis muscles than the Class II group (P<0.05). Patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion and skeletal Class I showed differences in muscular activity. The buccinator and digastric muscles were more active in skeletal Class II patients, while orbicularis oris and mentalis were less active. The temporalis and masseter muscles showed similar activity in both groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38343698
doi: 10.7759/cureus.53960
pmc: PMC10858728
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e53960Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024, Saker et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur J Orthod. 1992 Oct;14(5):339-49
pubmed: 1397072
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Jul;118(1):63-8
pubmed: 10893474
Scand J Dent Res. 1993 Oct;101(5):314-31
pubmed: 8248735
Am J Orthod. 1975 May;67(5):563-70
pubmed: 1054924
Cureus. 2023 Sep 4;15(9):e44645
pubmed: 37799218
Angle Orthod. 2002 Jun;72(3):251-7
pubmed: 12071609
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 May;99(5):409-17
pubmed: 2028931
Am J Orthod. 1980 Nov;78(5):477-94
pubmed: 6933855
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):722.e1-9
pubmed: 16769489
Am J Orthod. 1974 Apr;65(4):372-406
pubmed: 4522227
J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 Aug;19(4):343-9
pubmed: 21655772
Vojnosanit Pregl. 2014 Dec;71(12):1116-22
pubmed: 25638999
Int Orthod. 2015 Jun;13(2):181-194
pubmed: 25986702
Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):515-20
pubmed: 19413373
Angle Orthod. 2007 May;77(3):463-70
pubmed: 17465654
Am J Orthod. 1980 Oct;78(4):394-403
pubmed: 6933848
Am J Orthod. 1969 Feb;55(2):109-23
pubmed: 5249177