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 ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Proeschel, P.A.
Right arrow Articles by Raum, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Proeschel, P.A.
Right arrow Articles by Raum, J.
J Dent Res 82(8): 617-620, 2003
© 2003 International and American Associations for Dental Research

RESEARCH REPORT
Clinical

Task-dependence of Jaw Elevator and Depressor Co-activation

P.A. Proeschel*, and J. Raum

Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinic, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Glückstrasse 11, D 91054 Erlangen, Germany;

* corresponding author, peter.proeschel{at}rzmail.uni-erlangen.de


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Elevator muscle activity per unit bite-force has been shown to be higher in chewing than in isometric biting. We tested the hypothesis that surplus elevator activity is evoked in response to a possible co-activation of jaw-opener muscles during the masticatory power stroke. In 32 subjects, digastric and bilateral masseter and temporalis activities were recorded during unilateral chewing of test foods, isometric biting on a force transducer, and during balancing of the jaw against maximum effort of depressor muscles. During elevator peak effort in chewing, the digastric activity was 113% higher than during peak effort in isometric biting. Comparison of balancing and chewing trials revealed that a 6% increase of elevator activity would suffice to compensate for this increased depressor action. Elevator activity in chewing, however, was up to 130% higher than in clenching. We conclude that depressor counteraction could have only a minor influence on the generation of surplus muscle activity in chewing.

KEY WORDS: antagonistic co-activation • masticatory muscles • EMG • force-estimation


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Estimates of chewing force from electromyograms (EMG) calibrated in isometric biting on force transducers (Hagberg, 1987; Slagter et al., 1993; Tate et al., 1994; Proeschel and Raum, 2001) proved to exceed actual masticatory loads (Schindler et al., 1998; Proeschel and Morneburg, 2002). This is due to a dependence of activity/bite-force relations on the conditions under which muscles contract. Recent studies found higher elevator activities when a bite force was generated in a dynamic contraction like chewing than when the same force was applied in isometric clenching on a bite-fork (Proeschel and Morneburg, 2002). The physiological cause of a higher activity per unit bite-force in mastication is obscure. Among other factors, a co-activation of depressor muscles could possibly influence activity/force characteristics of the elevators. If depressors would counteract the jaw-closing force during the masticatory power stroke, the central nervous system might increase elevator activity to maintain the net occlusal load (Pruim et al., 1978; Miles and Madigan, 1983). Co-contraction of antagonistic jaw muscles is supposed to support load reduction in case of unexpected occlusal disturbance (Grillner, 1972; Miles and Wilkinson, 1982; Gibbs et al., 1984) or to smoothe and stabilize chewing movements (Moyers, 1950; Carlsöö, 1956; Winnberg and Pancherz, 1983; Gibbs et al., 1984). Since isometric clenching on a bite-fork involves no jaw movements or unexpected disturbances, a possible depressor co-activation in this task might be different than in chewing. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare elevator and depressor co-activation in natural chewing and in isometric biting on a transducer and to determine the amount of elevator muscle activity required to compensate for the action of jaw-opener muscles in both motor tasks.


   MATERIALS & METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Subjects
Thirty-two dental students (mean age 25 ± 2 yrs; 22 males, ten females) with complete dentitions and no temporomandibular disorders volunteered for this study after having given informed consent. The experimental protocol was approved by the ethics committee of our medical faculty. Electric activities of right and left masseter and anterior temporal muscles were recorded by means of bipolar Ag/AgCl surface electrodes (Hellige, Freiburg, Germany) with 2-cm electrode distance. For the depressor activity, a smaller bipolar electrode with 6-mm electrode distance was attached to the anterior belly of the right digastric muscle in the anterior submental region. Prior to electrode attachment, the skin was degreased with alcohol and rubbed with grinding paper to reduce impedance.

Experimental Procedures
In one experimental session, each person performed 12 different motor tasks for periods of 20 sec each. In 4 masticatory trials, the students first chewed winegum (Goldbären®, Haribo, Bonn, Germany) and then soft bread on each side separately. We monitored jaw movements by tracing a magnet attached to the lower incisors using a Sirognathograph® (Siemens, Bensheim, Germany). Next, an electronic bite-fork (Proeschel and Raum, 2001) was placed between the left or right lateral teeth in the area where the subjects used to chew. With each transducer placement, isometric contraction/relaxation cycles were performed intermittently with a chewing-like frequency. Peak loads of the clenches were alternated from low levels up to maximum voluntary biting strength, controlled via visual feedback with an oscilloscope. For isometric contractions to be ensured, the teeth maintained steady contact with the transducer’s biting lips, which were cushioned with hard rubber, causing 6-mm jaw separation. Five additional biting tasks were executed at other occlusal positions as described in a previous investigation (Proeschel and Raum, 2001). To determine the compensational power of depressor muscles, we devised a special task in which the students balanced their mandibles while contracting the depressor muscles as strongly as possible. Thereby, they avoided tooth contact, controlled by the Sirognathograph®. The jaw-balancing trials were also performed intermittently, with some seconds of relaxation between each contraction. The bite-fork was connected to a carrier frequency amplifier (TF19, Hellige, Germany). The raw electromyograms were filtered (10 Hz to 5 KHz), full-wave-rectified, and root-mean-square-integrated with a 40-msec time constant (Digital EMG system 1500®, Disa, Denmark). The analog force, EMG, and jaw movement signals were sampled by an A/D converter (6944A Multiprogrammer, Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA) at a rate of 100 Hz. Due to online control and processing of recorded data, a break of about 2 min arose after each trial.

Evaluation of Data and Statistics
For each person and muscle, we determined a mean elevator activity by averaging the peak activities of all cycles in each chewing, clenching, or balancing trial. Since no side-related differences were found, the data from the left- and right-sided trials were pooled to working or balancing sides, respectively. In isometric biting, digastric activity was determined at the moment of elevator peak force, indicated by the bite-fork signal. In chewing, digastric activity was determined at the moment when the teeth approached minimum vertical distance. In the jaw-balancing task, peak digastric and peak elevator activities were determined and were also averaged over the number of contractions. Results are given as mean ± standard deviation in the text and as mean ± standard error in the graphs. Student’s t test for paired data was applied to test mean value differences for significance at the 1% level (Statview® v. 4.5 for Macintosh, Abacus Concepts Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Elevator Muscle Activities
In unilateral biting (Fig. 1Go), the masseter activity on the working side (113 ± 47 µV) was slightly lower (p < 0.01) than on the balancing side (130 ± 61 µV). In contrast, the temporalis activity on the working side (109 ± 37 µV) was higher (p < 0.01) than on the balancing side (70 ± 36 µV). The mean biting force amounted to 278 N ± 51 N. In the chewing of winegum (Fig. 1Go), all elevator activities were higher than in isometric biting. The working side masseter activity was 130% higher than in biting (p < 0.01), while the balancing side activity was enhanced by only about 30%. The temporalis activities were enhanced by 130% on the balancing side (p < 0.01) and by 70% on the working side (p < 0.01), respectively. In the chewing of bread, a similar combination of elevator activities was found; however, the levels were lower than with the winegum bolus. When the jaw was balanced against maximum depressor effort (Fig. 1Go), elevator activities were symmetric with respect to the sides. Masseter muscles thereby developed a mean activity of 94 ± 59 µV, while temporalis muscles produced 31 ± 32 µV. In 90% of all balancing contractions, jaw gapes did not subside below 0.3 mm, indicating that no occlusal contacts occurred.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Group mean activities and standard errors (N = 32) of digastric muscles and of the masseter (upper graph) and temporalis muscles (lower graph) in the different motor tasks. The digastric activities appear twice in the upper and lower graphs. Working- and balancing-side activities are connected for the sake of clarity. Abbreviations: mass = masseter, temp = temporalis, ws = working side, bs = balancing side.

 
Digastric Muscle Activities
In the chewing and biting trials, digastric activities were low compared with elevator activities and ranged between about 9 and 20 µV (Fig. 1Go). In the balancing trial, the digastric muscle produced a considerably higher mean activity of 87 ± 36 µV. In unilateral biting, rise or decay of digastric activity occurred randomly and was not related to the loading or unloading phases of the biting cycles. The minimum EMG in the average biting cycle was 5.2 ± 2.2 µV (Fig. 2Go). During elevator peak effort, the digastric muscle reached 8.9 ± 3.1 µV. Maximum digastric activity occurred randomly before or after the peak force and amounted to 11.6 ± 3.6 µV. In chewing, digastric activity was significantly higher in all phases than in isometric biting (Fig. 2Go). With winegum, the minimum level was 8.4 ± 3 µV. At the instant of elevator peak effort, 18.7 ± 9.5 µV was reached. The maximum digastric activity amounted to 39.2 ± 11 µV (Fig. 2Go). With bread, quite similar levels (8.9, 19.8, and 40 µV) were obtained (Fig. 2Go). In contrast to isometric biting, the digastric activity in chewing was systematically related to the phases of the chewing cycles: The minimum activity always occurred during jaw closing, while the maximum EMG appeared during opening.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Mean digastric activities and standard errors (N = 32) in different phases of the chewing and unilateral biting cycles. "Minimum" and "maximum" denote the means of the smallest or highest activity within a chewing or clenching cycle, respectively.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
This study compared jaw-opener activation during elevator peak effort in chewing of natural foods and in isometric biting on a bite-fork. These tasks were examined because they are used for estimation of chewing force from masticatory EMGs calibrated in isometric biting (Hagberg, 1987; Slagter et al., 1993; Pröschel et al., 1994; Tate et al., 1994). The digastric muscle was selected to represent the depressor group, since its activity was supposed to be proportional to the jaw-opening force (Ahlgren et al., 1978; Winnberg and Pancherz, 1983; Pancherz et al., 1986). Even though several studies were concerned with digastric EMGs, the respective results could not easily be applied to answer the present problem. Most investigations examined either chewing (Winnberg and Pancherz, 1983) or isometric biting (Pruim et al., 1978; Gibbs et al., 1984; Pancherz et al., 1986; Van Willigen et al., 1993). When both tasks were performed in one investigation, biting was done in modes different from those used in our study (Carlsöö, 1956; Munro, 1974; Koole et al., 1991). In isometric transducer biting, the digastric signal was randomly fluctuating. There was no significant digastric co-contraction at the instant of elevator peak effort. This is in contrast to other studies, however, in which biting was performed with the expectation of a sudden yield of resistance (Miles and Madigan, 1983; Van Willigen et al., 1993). Depressor activation in chewing exceeded activation in clenching in all phases of the contraction cycle. In particular, during elevator peak effort, the digastric activity in chewing was 113% higher than in isometric biting. Since this was accompanied by elevator activity enhancements of up to 130%, one might conclude that the latter were in fact evoked to compensate for depressor co-activation, as was hypothesized. However, similar activity enhancements of agonistic and antagonistic muscles do not automatically imply similar force enhancements in both muscle groups. From the information gathered in the various motor tasks, an attempt is made in the following to estimate the underlying load conditions:

In jaw balancing, elevator activities of 93 µV (masseter) and 32 µV (temporalis) compensated for the maximum digastric activity of 84 µV. In chewing, the digastric EMG during elevator peak effort reached just about 20% of that maximum possible value, while, in transducer clenching, 13% was attained. Hence, the digastric action in chewing or in clenching could, in principle, be compensated for by 20% or 13% of the activity generated by the elevator muscles in jaw balancing. For the masseter, this would correspond to 19 µV in mastication (20% of 93 µV) or 12 µV in isometric biting (13% of 93 µV), and for the temporalis, 6.4 µV (20% of 32 µV) or 4 µV (13% of 32 µV), respectively. Thus, an increase of masseter activity by 7 µV (= 19 µV - 12 µV) and of temporalis activity by 2.4 µV would suffice to compensate for the 113% increase of digastric activity in chewing. Related to the activities of isometric biting (masseter, 113 µV; temporalis, 109 µV), this corresponds to an increase of masseter activity by 6% and of temporalis activity by 2.2%.

Despite its approximate character, this estimation indicates that depressor co-contraction could have only a minor influence on the production of additional elevator activity in chewing. When a 6% enhancement of elevator activity could compensate for the higher depressor counteraction in chewing, the observed enhancements of up to 130% must have other causes. The higher masticatory activity could suggest a higher bite force in chewing. A proportional extrapolation based on the enhanced activity, however, yielded chewing forces with unrealistic magnitudes (Proeschel and Raum, 2001). Moreover, activity combinations very similar to those of the present study were found to be accompanied by about equal forces in chewing and isometric biting (Proeschel and Morneburg, 2002). The same investigation finally demonstrated quite different activity/force relations in both motor tasks. The present study shows that depressor co-activation makes no significant contribution to this phenomenon. Therefore, other features—like different jaw gapes (Manns and Spreng, 1977) and contraction dynamics (Abbink et al., 1999) or the overcoming of jaw inertia in mastication—had to be examined.

Even though the digastric co-activation during elevator peak effort was significantly higher in chewing than in isometric biting, it was still small compared with the maximum possible level of digastric activity. One may speculate about the physiological meaning of a small digastric co-activation during chewing. Some authors have argued that even low activities could stiffen the muscles (Miles and Wilkinson, 1982; Miles and Madigan, 1983), providing a mechanism for immediate response to sudden disturbances in forceful biting (Grillner, 1972). This conception is based on experiments in which isometric biting was performed with considerable jaw gapes (Pruim et al., 1978; Miles and Madigan, 1983; Van Willigen et al., 1993). In chewing, however, the jaw gape during elevator peak effort is just about 0.5 mm (Proeschel and Raum, 2001), which is too small for the assumed protecting mechanism to become effective (Van Willigen et al., 1997). So if the observed increase of digastric activity would contribute to muscle stiffening at all, this may have a stabilizing rather than a protective function (Carlsöö, 1956). Targeted arm movements, for instance, were shown to be stabilized against disturbance by control of impedance achieved by co-activation of antagonistic muscle groups (Burdet et al., 2001). The situation in chewing is similar, since the teeth had to be guided into a stable intercuspal position despite possible aberration by the bolus. The increasing digastric activity during elevator peak effort might therefore reflect increased impedance of the elevator/depressor group, in contrast to isometric biting, where no motion of the mandible had to be stabilized.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The investigation was supported by the Wilhelm-Sander-Foundation, Germany, Grant No. 86.027.1. The authors thank Mrs. Jean Rickwood for editing the manuscript in English.

Received November 18, 2002; Last revision March 27, 2003; Accepted May 23, 2003


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS & METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Abbink JH, van der Bilt A, Bosman F, van der Glas HW (1999). Speed-dependent control of cyclic open-close movements of the human jaw with an external force counteracting closing. J Dent Res 78:878–886.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ahlgren J, Winnberg A, Lipke DP (1978). Electromyography of the digastric muscles and opening force of the mandible. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 18:471–486.[ISI][Medline]

Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (2001). The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature 414:446–449.[Medline]

Carlsöö S (1956). An electromyographic study of the activity of certain suprahyoid muscles (mainly the anterior belly of digastric muscle) and of the reciprocal innervation of the elevator and depressor musculature of the mandible. Acta Anat 26:81–93.[Medline]

Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Wilkinson TM, Mauderli A (1984). EMG activity of the superior belly of the lateral pterygoid muscle in relation to other jaw muscles. J Prosthet Dent 51:691–702.[ISI][Medline]

Grillner S (1972). The role of muscle stiffness in meeting the changing postural and locomotor requirements for force development by the ankle extensors. Acta Physiol Scand 86:92–108.[ISI][Medline]

Hagberg C (1987). The amplitude distribution of electromyographic activity in painful masseter muscles during unilateral chewing. J Oral Rehabil 14:531–540.[ISI][Medline]

Koole P, de Jongh HJ, Boering G (1991). A comparative study of electromyograms of the masseter, temporalis, and anterior digastric muscles obtained by surface and intramuscular electrodes: raw-EMG. Cranio 9:228–240.[ISI][Medline]

Manns A, Spreng M (1977). EMG amplitude and frequency at different muscular elongations under constant masticatory force or EMG activity. Acta Physiol Lat Am 27:259–271.[Medline]

Miles TS, Madigan ML (1983). Programming of antagonist muscle stiffness during masticatory muscle unloading in man. Arch Oral Biol 28:947–951.[ISI][Medline]

Miles TS, Wilkinson TM (1982). Limitation of jaw movement by antagonist muscle stiffness during unloading of human jaw closing muscles. Exp Brain Res 46:305–310.[ISI][Medline]

Moyers RE (1950). An electromyographic analysis of certain muscles involved in the temporomandibular movement. Am J Orthod 36:481– 515.[ISI][Medline]

Munro RR (1974). Activity of the digastric muscle in swallowing and chewing. J Dent Res 53:530–537.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pancherz H, Winnberg A, Westesson PL (1986). Masticatory muscle activity and hyoid bone behavior during cyclic jaw movements in man. A synchronized electromyographic and videofluorographic study. Am J Orthod 89:122–131.[ISI][Medline]

Proeschel PA, Morneburg T (2002). Task-dependence of activity/bite-force relations and its impact on estimation of chewing force from EMG. J Dent Res 81:464–468.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pröschel PA, Raum J (2001). Preconditions for estimation of masticatory forces from dynamic EMG and isometric bite force-activity relations of elevator muscles. Int J Prosthodont 14:563–569.[ISI][Medline]

Proeschel P, Ohkawa S, Hardtmann G, Ott RW (1994). Zur Möglichkeit der Kaukraft-schätzung aus dem Elektromyogramm der Elevatoren. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 49:37–40.

Pruim GJ, Ten Bosch JJ, de Jongh HJ (1978). Jaw muscle EMG—activity and static loading of the mandible. J Biomech 11:389–395.[ISI][Medline]

Schindler HJ, Stengel E, Spiess WE (1998). Elektromyographische Aktivität, Kraftentwicklung und Kinematik beim Kauen fester Nahrungstexturen. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 53:551–556.

Slagter AP, Bosman F, van der Glas HW, van der Bilt A (1993). Human jaw-elevator muscle activity and food comminution in the dentate and edentulous state. Arch Oral Biol 38:195–205.[ISI][Medline]

Tate GS, Throckmorton GS, Ellis E 3rd, Sinn DP, Blackwood DJ (1994). Estimated masticatory forces in patients before orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:130–136.[ISI][Medline]

Van Willigen JD, Broekhuijsen ML, Melchior HJ, Karkazis HC, Kossioni A, Heath MR (1993). Digastric muscle response as a function of the knowledge of the task to be performed. Arch Oral Biol 38:113–121.[ISI][Medline]

Van Willigen JD, Otten E, Slager GF, Broekhuijsen MI (1997). Contribution of the digastric muscles to the control of bite force in man. Arch Oral Biol 42:45–56.[ISI][Medline]

Winnberg A, Pancherz H (1983). Head posture and masticatory muscle function. An EMG investigation. Eur J Orthod 5:209–217.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





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 ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Proeschel, P.A.
Right arrow Articles by Raum, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Proeschel, P.A.
Right arrow Articles by Raum, J.

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