Occlusal splint versus modified nociceptive trigeminal inhibition splint in bruxism therapy: A randomized, controlled trial using surface electromyography

21Citations
Citations of this article
151Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background An occlusal splint and a modified nociceptive trigeminal inhibition splint (AMPS, anterior deprogrammer, Kois deprogrammer, Lucia jig, etc.) are commonly and quite frequently used in the treatment of masticatory muscle disorders, although their sustainable and long-lasting effect on these muscles' function is still not very well known. Results of scant surface electromyography studies in patients with temporomandibular disorders have been contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate both devices in bruxism therapy; EMG activity levels during postural activity and maximum voluntary contraction of the superficial temporal and masseter muscles were compared before and after 30 days of treatment. Methods Surface electromyography of the examined muscles was performed in two groups of bruxers (15 patients each). Patients in the first group used occlusal splints, while those in the second used modified nociceptive trigeminal inhibition splints. The trial was randomized, controlled and semi-blind. Results Neither device affected the asymmetry index or postural activity/maximum voluntary contraction ratio after 1 month of treatment. Conclusions Neither the occlusal nor the nociceptive trigeminal inhibition splint showed any significant influence on the examined muscles. Different scientific methods should be considered in clinical applications that require either direct influence on the muscles' bioelectrical activity or a quantitative measurement of the treatment quality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dalewski, B., Chrus̈ciel-Nogalska, M., & Frączak, B. (2015). Occlusal splint versus modified nociceptive trigeminal inhibition splint in bruxism therapy: A randomized, controlled trial using surface electromyography. Australian Dental Journal, 60(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12259

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free