JDR JDR Most Read Articles
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naeije, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hofman, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naeije, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hofman, N.
J Dent Res 82(7): 528-531, 2003
© 2003 International and American Associations for Dental Research

RESEARCH REPORT
Biomaterials & Bioengineering

Biomechanics of the Human Temporomandibular Joint during Chewing

M. Naeije*, and N. Hofman

Department of Oral Function, Section of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Center Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

*corresponding author, m.naeije{at}acta.nl


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental data on the loading of the human temporomandibular joint during chewing are scarce. Coincidence of the opening and closing chewing strokes of the condyles probably indicates compression in the joint during chewing. Using this indication, we studied the loading of the joint during chewing and chopping of a latex-packed food bolus on the left or right side of the mouth. Mandibular movements of ten healthy subjects were recorded. Distances traveled by the condylar kinematic centers were normalized with respect to the distances traveled during maximum opening. We judged coincidence of the opening and closing condylar movement traces without knowing their origin. When subjects chewed, the ipsilateral condyles traveled shorter distances than did the contralateral condyles. During chewing and chopping, all contralateral condyles showed a coincident movement pattern, while a significantly smaller number of ipsilateral condyles did. These results suggest that the ipsilateral joints were less heavily loaded during chewing and chopping than were the contralateral joints.

KEY WORDS: biomechanics • temporomandibular joint • TMJ • chewing • kinematic center


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Due to technical limitations, no experimental data are available on the mechanical loading of the human temporomandibular joint (TMJ) during chewing and chopping. As an alternative, investigators estimate joint loading by using biomechanical models (Koolstra and van Eijden, 1997; Langenbach and Hannam, 1999). However, these models also demand experimental verification. A recent study has indicated that when, during chewing, the opening and closing condylar movement traces coincide, there is compression in the TMJ during the closing stroke. However, when the traces do not coincide, the TMJ is not or only slightly under compression during closing (Huddleston Slater et al., 1999). The aim of the present study was to use these observations to study the loading of the TMJ during chewing and chopping tasks.


   MATERIALS & METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Participants
Ten participants, five women and five men, from 21 to 32 yrs old, participated in the study after giving informed consent. They were free of temporomandibular disorders, joint sounds, systemic diseases, and orthodontic abnormalities such an excessive overbite. The scientific and ethical aspects of this study were reviewed by the review board of the Netherlands Institute of Dental Sciences.

Jaw Movement Recording System
Mandibular movements were recorded by the "6 degrees of freedom" jaw movement recording system, OKAS-3D (Naeije et al., 1995). The horizontal planes of the lower and upper reference frames run parallel to the occlusal plane; the vertical planes run parallel to the medial plane of the participant’s head.

Experimental Protocol
The subjects participated in two sessions—the first to familiarize them with the experimental context, the second the actual recording session.

During the recording session, each participant performed 4 tasks. First, he/she was instructed to chew or chop (chewing with mainly vertical chewing strokes), for 20 sec, a test food bolus of about 1 cm3 (Fruitella, Van Melle B.V., Breda, The Netherlands) on the left or right side of the mouth. The investigator placed the bolus on the participant’s tongue, and, before chewing, the participant closed the mouth in the intercuspal position to create a reference position for analysis. To keep the consistency of the food bolus constant during chewing, we packed each bolus in latex so that it could not mix with the subject’s saliva. Before we took any recordings, we heated the bolus in hot water (55°C) to soften it and to give it an elasticity modulus of about 4000 N/m. Each task was performed twice, and the recording with the least variation in the frontal movement traces of the lower incisal point was chosen for further analysis (visually checked).

The participants also performed 20-second recordings of maximum free opening and closing, of maximum free opening and loaded closing, and of maximum protrusion and retrusion. Loading of the joints during closing was achieved through the application of a small counteracting force to the subject’s chin (± 50 N). On average, 18 movements were performed during each 20-second recording.

Data Analysis
The kinematic center was used as the condylar reference point (Yatabe et al., 1995, 1997). The three-dimensional distances between the start and the end points of the opening kinematic center movement traces were calculated and normalized with respect to the maximum distance traveled during free opening. The mean values within each 20-second recording were used for further statistical analysis.

Normally, during free (unloaded) opening and closing movements of the mandible, the closing traces of the condylar kinematic center lie below the opening traces. However, when the joint is loaded during closing—for instance, by a manually applied counteracting force on the chin—the condyle is pressed against the articular eminence, and its closing movement traces will shift upward and coincide with the opening traces (Huddleston Slater et al., 1999) (Fig. 1Go). Thus, coincident condylar movement traces indicate compression in the joint during closing, whereas non-coincident movement traces indicate no or only slight compression.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. The superimposed sagittal movement traces of the condylar kinematic center of one of the subjects. The free-closing kinematic center movement traces were situated below the opening traces (A). However, compression in the joint during closing, as the result of a manually applied counteracting force on the chin, shifted the closing movement traces upward and made them coincide with the opening traces (B). Opening traces are gray, closing traces black.

 
For each chewing or chopping task, the type of movement pattern of a joint (coincident or non-coincident) was visually judged by an investigator experienced in the analysis of condylar movements (Fig. 2Go). He was blind to the type of chewing pattern (chewing or chopping) and to the type of condyle (ipsilateral or contralateral). The same investigator judged the movement traces a second time, 6 mos later. Ninety-four percent of the movement patterns received the same classification. The Kappa value for the intra-rater reliability was 0.85 (excellent agreement).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. The superimposed sagittal movement traces of the kinematic centers of the left and right joints, and the superimposed frontal movement traces of the lower incisal point of two participants chewing on the right (A) and left sides (B), respectively. For both participants, the contralateral condylar traces were longer and showed a coincident movement pattern. The movement traces on the ipsilateral side showed a non-coincident movement pattern for one participant (A), while for the other participant (B), the joint compression close to the intercuspal position shifted the closing traces so far upward that they were situated even slightly above the opening traces (scored as "coincident pattern"; see also DISCUSSION). The opening traces are gray, closing traces are black.

 
Statistical Analysis
Differences between the normalized distances traveled by the ipsilateral and contralateral condyles were analyzed with paired t tests. Differences in the numbers of coincident movement patterns between both sides were analyzed with McNemar tests. Probability levels of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Since each participant chewed on both sides, the number of ipsilateral and contralateral joints was 20. However, one of the participants misunderstood the chopping task and chewed on the left and the right sides alternately, making the number of joints for chopping 18.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
When subjects chewed, the distances traveled by the condylar kinematic centers were shorter on the ipsilateral side than on the contralateral side (Table 1Go, p < 0.000). We found no differences during the chopping tasks.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. The Normalized Distances (mean values and standard deviations) Traveled by the Ipsilateral Kinematic Centers of the Condyles were Significantly Shorter during Chewing, not During Chopping.
 
During chewing and chopping, the kinematic centers of all contralateral joints showed a coincident movement pattern (Table 2Go). Moreover, the number of joints with a coincident movement pattern was significantly smaller on the ipsilateral side than on the contralateral side, during both chewing (p < 0.000) and chopping (p < 0.001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. The Number of Joints with a Coincident Movement Pattern was Significantly Smaller on the Ipsilateral Side, during Both Chewing and Chopping.
 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Recordings of mandibular movements with 6 degrees of freedom may provide us with more insight into joint loading during chewing (Hannam, 1991; Palla et al., 1997; Huddleston Slater et al., 1999). The new method used in this study relies upon a comparison of the opening and closing condylar movement traces, and its only limitation is that it can recognize only two states of joint loading: compression and no (or only slight) compression. However, the amount of compression in the joint cannot be recorded this way. Like all similar jaw movement recording systems, our system also relies upon the validity of the formulae of rigid body mathematics. However, human bone is not totally rigid during chewing. A combination of sagittal bending, corpus rotation, and transverse bending of the mandible may occur (Van Eijden, 2000). The extent to which this influences the reconstructed movement traces is difficult to establish, and, so far, little can be done to compensate for the possible distortions (Hannam, 1991). To overcome this problem, we were careful that the latex-packed food bolus was soft enough to distort the mandibular bone only minimally, yet was still hard enough to activate the muscles moderately during chewing and chopping. However, the compression in the left joint of the participant shown in Fig. 2BGo shifted the closing traces so far upward that they got situated even slightly above the opening traces. This was scored as a "coincident movement pattern" and, in our opinion, illustrates that the assumption of a rigid mandible was not totally valid in this case.

The lower incisal movement traces show considerably more variation than those of the kinematic centers (Fig. 2Go). The movements of the dental arches are under strong neuromuscular control and are also influenced by the various shapes and positions of the food bolus between the dental arches, whereas the movement traces of the kinematic centers are mainly guided by the anatomical shape of the articular eminence (Yatabe et al., 1995, 1997; Naeije, 2003). The shorter normalized distances on the ipsilateral side correspond with the lateral deviations of the mandible to that side during chewing. During chopping, the subjects were instructed to chew with minimal lateral deviations of the mandible. This probably explains why no difference in distances was found during chopping.

Coincidence of the opening and closing kinematic center movement traces was regarded as a sign of compression in the joint during chewing; "no coincidence" was seen as a sign of no (or only slight) compression. However, during chewing, which is an asymmetric task, the condyles may follow slightly different trajectories during opening and closing. This may obscure the interpretation of non-coinciding sagittal opening and closing traces. However, also during chopping, which is a more symmetric task, non-coincident movement patterns were found, suggesting that this observation is not related to the asymmetric nature of chewing. Moreover, all contralateral joints showed coincident movement patterns, during both chewing and chopping.

The results of this study are partly in line with the predictions of biomechanical models. Static modeling of tooth clenching on a unilateral molar bite point predicts that joint forces are greater on the contralateral side (Faulkner et al., 1987; Korioth, 1997). However, dynamic modeling of the human jaw suggests that, during chewing, the compressive forces on the ipsilateral side exceed those on the contralateral side (Langenbach and Hannam, 1999), whereas for chopping, the results were similar to those for the static situation, with higher condylar forces on the contralateral side. This confirms the complexity of unilateral chewing and its strong dependency on the co-contraction patterns of the muscles involved. Experiments in macaques (Hylander, 1979) and on human adult mandibles (Mongini et al., 1981) confirm that joint reaction forces are higher on the contralateral side. Analysis of tomograms revealed that the minimum joint space of the contralateral joint was significantly reduced during unilateral molar clenching, whereas no significant change was found on the ipsilateral side (Kuboki et al., 1996).

The suggestion that the ipsilateral joint is less heavily loaded during chewing than the contralateral joint may explain why patients with joint pain occasionally report less pain while chewing on the painful side.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by the Netherlands Institute of Dental Sciences (IOT).

Received May 13, 2002; Last revision December 9, 2002; Accepted March 17, 2003


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Faulkner MG, Hatcher DC, Hay A (1987). A three-dimensional investigation of temporomandibular joint loading. J Biomech 20:997–1002.[ISI][Medline]

Hannam AG (1991). The measurement of jaw motion. In: Current controversies in temporomandibular disorders. McNeill C, editor. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., pp. 130-137.

Huddleston Slater JJ, Visscher CM, Lobbezoo F, Naeije M (1999). The intra-articular distance within the TMJ during free and loaded closing movements. J Dent Res 78:1815–1820.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hylander WL (1979). Experimental analysis of temporomandibular joint reaction force in macaques. Am J Phys Anthropol 51:433–456.[ISI][Medline]

Koolstra JH, van Eijden TM (1997). The jaw open-close movements predicted by biomechanical modelling. J Biomech 30:943–950.[ISI][Medline]

Korioth TWP (1997). Simulated physics of the human mandible. In: Science and practice of occlusion. McNeill C, editor. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., pp. 179-186.

Kuboki T, Azuma Y, Orsini MG, Takenami Y, Yamashita A (1996). Effects of sustained unilateral molar clenching on the temporomandibular joint space. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 82:616–624.[ISI][Medline]

Langenbach GE, Hannam AG (1999). The role of passive muscle tensions in a three-dimensional dynamic model of the human jaw. Arch Oral Biol 44:557–573.[ISI][Medline]

Mongini F, Preti G, Calderale PM, Barberi G (1981). Experimental strain analysis on the mandibular condyle under various conditions. Med Biol Eng Comput 19:521–523.[ISI][Medline]

Naeije M (2003). Measurement of condylar motion; a plea for the use of the condylar kinematic center. J Oral Rehabil 30:225–230.[ISI][Medline]

Naeije M, van der Weijden JJ, Megens CC (1995). OKAS-3D: optoelectronic jaw movement recording system with six degrees of freedom. Med Biol Eng Comput 33:683–688.[ISI][Medline]

Palla S, Krebs M, Gallo LM (1997). Jaw tracking and temporomandibular joint animation. In: Science and practice of occlusion. McNeill C, editor. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., pp. 365-378.

Van Eijden TM (2000). Biomechanics of the mandible. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:123–136.[Abstract]

Yatabe M, Zwijnenburg A, Megens CC, Naeije M (1995). The kinematic center: a reference for condylar movements. J Dent Res 74:1644–1648.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Yatabe M, Zwijnenburg A, Megens CC, Naeije M (1997). Movements of the mandibular condyle kinematic center during jaw opening and closing. J Dent Res 76:714–719.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
M. Sato, M. Motoyoshi, M. Hirabayashi, K. Hosoi, N. Mitsui, and N. Shimizu
Inclination of the occlusal plane is associated with the direction of the masticatory movement path
Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2007; 29(1): 21 - 25.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naeije, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hofman, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naeije, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hofman, N.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)