These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of controlled masticatory exercise on pain and muscle performance in myofascial pain patients: A pilot study.
    Author: Gavish A, Winocur E, Astandzelov-Nachmias T, Gazit E.
    Journal: Cranio; 2006 Jul; 24(3):184-90. PubMed ID: 16933459.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that strengthening masticatory muscles using a controlled chewing exercise protocol improves muscle function, as evaluated quantitatively by electromyogram, and reduces pain at rest and during function. The study included 20 patients diagnosed with myofascial pain according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders with low masseter volume increase during maximal clench. The exercise group (ten patients) was subjected to a controlled gum chewing exercise protocol for eight weeks: the control group (ten patients) received only support and encouragement. Patients were examined at the beginning and at the end of the experiment which included an electromyogram (EMG) to assess muscle performance, masticatory muscle tenderness to palpation, mouth opening range, subjective anamnestic indices to evaluate pain perception and pain relief, and chewing tests. The EMG showed that the masticatory muscle exercise did produce objective physiologic results. In the exercise group, a significant increase was found in the electric muscle activity of the masseters during maximal voluntary clench (p=0.007). The exercise group showed significant reduction in pain during rest, pain during the chewing test, and a disability score. At the end of the study, a difference between the two groups was shown in the Pain Relief Scale: significantly greater pain relief was found in the exercise group as compared to the control group (p=0.019). For all other clinical parameters, there was no difference between the two groups or interaction between time and treatment. The results of this study seem to be equivocal. Additional experiments on larger population groups with extended chewing protocols are necessary before a more substantial conclusion can be reached.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]