The recording and analysis of EMG and jaw tracking. I the recording procedure

Abstract

A computer-based system is described which records and analyses electromyographic (EMG) signals and tracking data for mandibular movements during function. EMG signals were obtained bilaterally from six muscles and a Sirognathograph monitored the position of the lower incisor teeth in three dimensions. Directed jaw movement tasks by subjects were monitored. These data were continuously sampled at a rate of 1 KHz per channel over an operator controlled period. Analysis of the data was performed off-line following the experiment. Individual chewing cycles associated with masticatory function were identified and the timing and dimensions of each chewing envelope established. Corresponding EMG values were also determined and displays of EMG and jaw movement were plotted on a common time base. An average chewing cycle and correlated EMG activity could also be displayed on a high resolution monitor and plotted for a hard copy to enable a comparison to be made between subjects with and without jaw dysfunction.

The recording and analysis of EMG and jaw tracking. II. reproducibility of jaw tracking

“…The experimental method has been shown to be satisfactory in its ability to record accurately jaw movement and EMG activity in real time (Howell et al, 1992) An identical protocol was used for each subject with the recordings being carried out on the same day of the week and at the same time of day, to standardise the recording procedure. As well a calm, temperature-controlled environment existed.…”

“…The experimental arrangement has been described in detail (Howell et al, 1992). Briefly a Sirognathograph* was used to monitor the position of the lower incisor teeth in three dimensions.…”

Human mastication modulated by experimental trigeminal and extra‐trigeminal painful stimuli

“…The duration of the masticatory cycle and the vertical amplitude of the jaw movement described in the present study (724-781 ms, 18-8-20-6 mm) are comparable to those found in other studies, e.g. 763-768 ms for unilateral gum-chewing (M0ller, Sheikholeslam & Lous, 1984); 790-800 ms and 15-8-17-7 mm for gum-chewing (Neill & Howell, 1986); 587-673 ms and 11-9-12-2 mm for peanut-chewing (Ghew et al, 1988) and 842 ms and 11-9 mm for gum-chewing (Howell et al, 1992). The masticatory cycle duration and jaw movement amplitude are affected by many factors, e.g.…”

“…763-768 ms for unilateral gum-chewing (M0ller, Sheikholeslam & Lous, 1984); 790-800 ms and 15-8-17-7 mm for gum-chewing (Neill & Howell, 1986); 587-673 ms and 11-9-12-2 mm for peanut-chewing (Ghew et al, 1988) and 842 ms and 11-9 mm for gum-chewing (Howell et al, 1992 The masticatory cycle duration and jaw movement amplitude are affected by many factors, e.g. immediate insertion of premature occlusal contacts (Shiau & Ash, 1989), consistency of the bolus (Neil & Howell, 1986), fatigue due to intense mastication (Tzakis, Karlsson & Carlsson, 1992) and jaw muscle pain (Lund etal., 1993) (for a review see Bakke, 1993).…”

The Correlation Between Surface Electromyography and Bite Force of Mastication Muscles in Asian Young Adults

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9] Occlusal force can be measured directly between a pair of teeth by using a suitable transducer. 3,7,8,[10][11][12] However, no standard device for measuring occlusal force has been developed, and thus, dental occlusion has largely been a matter of guesswork for dentists. Articulation paper, waxes, and pressure indicator paste are the main tools dentists use to assess and balance the forces of occlusion.…”