不同类型咬合板对颞下颌关节紊乱病疼痛患者咀嚼肌肌电的影响

目的:研究松弛型咬合板和稳定型咬合板对急慢性颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)疼痛患者颞肌前束(TA)、咬肌(MM)肌电的影响。方法:68例TMD疼痛患者分为急慢性2组,比较分析戴咬合板前和戴咬合板1个月后双侧TA和MM肌电电位。结果:戴板后静息状态下急慢性组患者双侧TA及MM肌电电位均较戴板前明显下降(P<0.05);紧咬状态下急性组戴松弛型咬合板患者双侧TA、MM肌电电位较戴板前明显上升,戴稳定型咬合板患者仅MM肌电电位较戴板前明显上升;慢性组戴松弛型和稳定型咬合板患者MM肌电电位均较戴板前明显上升(P<0.05)。结论:松弛型和稳定型咬合板均对咀嚼肌有松弛作用,松弛型咬合板更能明显缓解TMD急性患者肌紧张。     

咬合板高度对TMD患者咀嚼肌肌电的影响

目的:研究不同高度的咬合板对颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)患者颞肌前束、咬肌肌电的影响。方法:73例TMD患者随机分为3组,戴用不同高度咬合板使咬合距离分别增加3mm、5mm、7mm,比较分析戴板前和戴板后即刻测量的双侧颞肌前束(TA)和咬肌(MM)肌电电位。结果:在静息及紧咬状态下,戴用不同高度咬合板即刻测量的TA及MM肌电电位均明显低于戴板前的测量值(P<0.05);紧咬状态下5mm和7mm咬合板对MM肌电电位的降低程度显著高于3mm组。结论:咬合板是治疗肌功能紊乱的有效方法。高度为5mm和7mm的咬合板降低咀嚼肌肌电的能力较3mm咬合板更强。     

不同类型咬合板缓解TMD疼痛症状的研究

目的:研究松弛型咬合板和稳定型咬合板缓解颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)疼痛症状的疗效。方法:选择TMD患者68例(急性期30例,慢性期38例),每组又分两个亚组,分别戴用松弛型咬合板和稳定型咬合板,使用视觉模拟量表评价患者治疗前后疼痛强度的变化。结果:①戴咬合板后静息状态下急、慢性组患者疼痛指数均较戴咬合板前明显下降(P<0.05),两种咬合板缓解疼痛的程度无明显差异;②戴咬合板后功能状态下急、慢性组患者疼痛指数均较戴咬合板前明显下降(P<0.05),但急性组戴松弛型咬合板疼痛缓解程度更显著。结论:松弛型和稳定型咬合板能缓解TMD疼痛,松弛型咬合板缓解TMD急性患者疼痛症状更显著。     

稳定型咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病疼痛症状的研究

目的：探讨稳定型咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病（TMD）疼痛的疗效。方法：TMD疼痛患者61例，急性组28例（男11例，女17例）；慢性组33例（男18例，女15例）。记录治疗前后疼痛指数，双侧颞肌前束（temporal anterior，TA）和咬肌（masseter muscle，MM）牙尖交错位最大紧咬时电位及最大紧咬时咬合接触情况。结果：（1）2组治疗后1月疼痛指数均明显低于治疗前（P〈0．05），治疗前后疼痛强度差值及显效率2组之间无显著差异（P〉0．05）。（2）治疗后无论是急性组还是慢性组TA及MM最大紧咬电位症状侧均较治疗前明显升高（P〈0．05），而非症状侧治疗前后无明显差异（P〉0．05）。（3）治疗后急性组TA和MM肌电不对称指数与治疗前相比均明显降低（P〈0．05）。治疗后肌电不对称指数TA慢性组明显高于急性组（P〈0．05），而MM无明显差异（P〉0．05）。（4）2组治疗前后左、右两侧咬合接触点数、以及咬合接触不对称指数无明显差异（P〉0．05）。结论：稳定型咬合板治疗可以明显缓解TMD疼痛，但对急、慢性疼痛的缓解程度无明显差异。其机制可能与肌功能活动情况易于得到明显改善等生理学基础有关。     

稳定性咬合板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病的咀嚼肌肌电图研究

目的：通过对颞下颌关节紊乱病（Temporomandibular disorders,TMD）患者进行稳定性咬合板的可逆性咬合治疗,然后利用肌电图仪测量治疗前后患者的咀嚼肌（TA和MM）的肌电情况,分析探讨用稳定性咬合板对颞下颌关节紊乱病患者咀嚼肌肌电图的影响。方法：选取来我院就诊的10例咀嚼肌功能紊乱患者,在稳定性咬合板治疗前和治疗后3个月时,分别用肌电图仪对其咀嚼肌（TA和MM）进行肌电检查,并通过比较治疗前后的咀嚼肌活动不对称指数情况。结果：戴入稳定性咬合板3个月后,颞肌前束与咬肌的MPP和ICP高电位降低（P〈0.05）;最大紧咬时双侧咀嚼肌总体不对称性指数（Astot）、双侧颞肌不对称性指数（ASTA）和双侧咬肌不对称性指数（ASMM）均降低（P〈0.05）。结论：颞下颌关节紊乱病患者通过稳定性咬合板进行咬合治疗后,使患者双侧咀嚼肌的MPP和ICP高电位较治疗前有明显的降低,最大紧咬时双侧咀嚼肌活动不对称性得到明显的改善。     

口颌面痛激光照射与Myomonitor治疗的比较研究

目的：比较激光照射（A法）与Myomonitor（B法）治疗口颌面痛的疗效。方法：TMD疼痛病例70例，分A、B治疗组，分别用A法和B法治疗。疼痛视觉分析指数（VAS）评价疼痛，记录牙尖交错位最大紧咬时双侧颓肌前束（TA）及咬肌（MM）肌电，以咬合膜片记录咬合接触。结果：①治疗后两组VAS值均降低，但B法慢性组显效率较高（P〈0.05）。②A法治疗后急性组TA及MM，B法治疗后急性组TA、MM及慢性组MM电位对称性增高（P〈0．05）。③咬合接触点数仅B法治疗后急性组有所增加（P〈0．05）。结论：激光照射与myomonitor治疗均可缓解TMD疼痛，但对慢性疼痛Myomonitor疗效更明显。TMD疼痛与双侧肌功能不协调有关。     

稳定型咬合板配合咬合重建治疗咀嚼肌疼痛疗效评价

目的　评价稳定型咬合板配合咬合重建治疗咀嚼肌疼痛的疗效。方法　选取2016年9月至2018年5月于中国医科大学附属口腔医院综合科及修复一科行稳定型咬合板及咬合重建序列治疗的咀嚼肌疼痛患者20例。分析治疗前（T0期）、佩戴咬合板3个月后（T1期）、咬合重建完成即刻（T2期）及咬合重建完成3个月后（T3期）的疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）、肌电图及Friction颞下颌关节紊乱指数的变化。结果　T1、T2、T3期患者VAS评分、下颌姿势位时颞肌咬肌的肌电活性、颞肌咬肌不对称指数及Friction颞下颌关节紊乱指数均较T0期显著降低,差异有统计学意义（均P < 0.05）;最大紧咬牙时颞肌咬肌的肌电活性较T0期明显增高,差异有统计学意义（均P < 0.05）。T1、T2、T3期患者之间的VAS评分、颞肌咬肌的肌电活性、颞肌咬肌不对称指数及Friction颞下颌关节紊乱指数差异无统计学意义（均P > 0.05）。结论　稳定型咬合板可有效治疗咀嚼肌疼痛,咬合重建序列治疗能很好维持其疗效。     

稳定型咬()板治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病疼痛的疗效观察

作者应用稳定型咬板治疗302名颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)患者(其中207人单侧,95人双侧,总共397例).该疗法对TMD疼痛的总有效率为80.3%,对嚼肌、颞肌、翼外肌疼痛的平均总有效率为86.1%.认为稳定型咬板通过阻断干扰的激惹因素,缓解肌痉挛,从而解除疼痛.它对治疗颞下颌关节紊乱病肌功能紊乱所造成的疼痛具有较好的疗效.     

视觉反馈诱导下升颌肌不同水平主动收缩的表面肌电研究

目的:探索持续紧咬、咬合力水平和视觉反馈三因素对正中紧咬时颞肌前束和咬肌的肌电活动水平是否存在协同作用。方法:应用T-Scan III咬合分析仪和BioEMG III肌电图仪同步记录25例健康正常成年人以轻度、中等、最大咬合力做正中紧咬时双侧颞肌前束(TA)和咬肌(MM)的肌电活动,并以多因素方差分析方法分析咬合力水平、力值视觉反馈和维持因素对肌电活动的影响。结果:析因分析结果显示,双侧TA和MM的肌电活动水平均随咬合力增高以及力量维持而增强(P<0.001),而且咬合力水平与维持因素之间存在交互作用(P<0.01),力值视觉反馈下仅一侧肌电(右侧TA和左侧MM)维持在目标水平(P>0.05)。结论:维持一定的咬合力水平将增加咬肌和颞肌前束的肌电活动,维持努力与咬合力水平之间存在交互作用。咬合力水平视觉反馈对降低肌电活动水平有一定的作用。     

肌电分析在TMD临床疗效评价中的应用

目的:探讨3种不同方法治疗伴有磨牙症TMD的咀嚼肌肌电特征差异,评价3种治疗方法的效果.方法:30例伴有磨牙症的TMD患者被随机分为3组,每组10例.A组进行内毒杆菌毒素A(BTX-A)双侧咬肌肌内注射治疗,B组进行功能训练治疗,C组进行弹性颌垫治疗.对3组研究对象在治疗前、治疗1、3、6个月分别采集双侧咬肌(MM)和颞肌前束(TA)在下颌姿势位(MPP)以及牙尖交错位(ICP)最大紧咬牙时的肌电图(EMG),采用SAS 5.0统计学软件分析比较3组的峰值电位(Amp)之间是否存在统计学差异.结果:横向比较中各个治疗时间段A组患者疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)显著低于B组和C组(P＜0.05),肌电显示MPP中A组在治疗过程中能显著降低双侧咬肌肌力(P＜0.05),ICP时A组在1、3个月时显著降低双侧咬肌肌力(P＜0.05),同时双侧颞肌肌力显著增强(P＜0.05).纵向比较中3组在治疗过程中均能明显降低疼痛(P＜0.05),但3组时间点不同,A组缓解疼痛时间较长,肌电图显示3组均可显著降低咬肌MPP肌力(P＜0.05),A、C组可降低ICP咬肌肌力(P＜0.05),A组双侧颞肌肌力可代偿增强(P＜0.05),B、C组颞肌肌力治疗前后均无统计学差异(P＞0.05).结论:临床症状与肌电图的结合使用能够对口颌系统行使功能过程中咀嚼肌的表现进行很好地观测,对TMD患者的咀嚼肌生物力学和结构方面有很好地理解.BTX-A肌内注射方法治疗伴有磨牙症的TMD可显著缓解患者疼痛,疗效持续时间较长.BTX-A肌内注射可显著降低咀嚼肌力,使目标肌肉(咬肌)疲劳得到缓解,促进咀嚼肌力平衡重建,较传统方式存在潜在优势.     

Efficacy of Appliance Therapy on Temporomandibular Disorder Related Facial Pain and Mandibular Mobility: A Randomized Controlled Study

There is limited evidence supporting the role of occlusal splints in Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) therapy. The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the efficacy of stabilization splint therapy on TMD related facial pain and mandibular mobility. The sample of study consisted of eighty consecutive patients diagnosed with TMD. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups: a splint group (n = 40) comprising of patients treated with stabilization splint, councelling and masticatory muscle exercises, and a control group (n = 40), comprising of patients treated with councelling and masticatory muscle exercises alone. Data from both the groups were collected at the beginning of the study and after a 6-month follow up. The outcome variables were visual analogue scale on facial pain intensity and clinical findings for TMD (anterior maximal opening, mandibular right laterotrusion, mandibular left laterotrusion, mandibular protrusion, and number of painful muscle sites). Changes within the splint and control groups (before treatment and 6 months after treatment) were analyzed using paired samples t test. Differences in change between the splint and control groups were analyzed using independent samples t-test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Facial pain and number of painful muscle sites decreased, and the mandibular mobility increased significantly in both groups after treatment; however the differences in changes in VAS or clinical TMD findings between the two groups were not statistically significant. The findings of this study show that stabilization splint treatment in combination with counselling and masticatory muscle exercises has no additional benefit in relieving facial pain and increasing the mobility of the mandible than counselling and masticatory muscle exercises alone over a 6-months’ time interval.     

肌位咬合板对颅颌功能紊乱者咀嚼肌肌电图的影响

目的：研究肌位咬合板对颅颌功能紊乱（ Ｃ Ｍ Ｄ）患者咀嚼肌肌电的影响,探讨其作用机理。方法：采用美国 Ｅ Ｍ２ 型肌电仪记录１０２ 例患者带咬合板前后的姿势位（ Ｍ Ｐ Ｐ）及牙尖交错位（ Ｉ Ｃ Ｐ）最大紧咬时的肌电变化。结果：（１）即刻戴入咬合板后颞肌前束（ Ｔ Ａ）与嚼肌（ Ｍ Ｍ）的 Ｍ Ｐ Ｐ高电位明显降低（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）;治疗后不戴咬合板复查, Ｔ Ａ、颞肌后束（ Ｔ Ｐ）和 Ｍ Ｍ 肌紧张缓解。（２）戴咬合板紧咬双侧 Ｔ Ａ、 Ｔ Ｐ 和 Ｍ Ｍ 的肌电活动显著减小（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）, Ｍ Ｍ 的肌电活动对称性明显提高（ Ｐ＜ ０．０５）,活动指数显著增加（ Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：肌位咬合板能明显降低升颌肌最大紧咬的肌电活动,提高嚼肌的肌电活动对称性及活动指数。     

Efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on temporomandibular disorders

Summary The evidence supporting the use of stabilisation splints in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is scarce and a need for well‐controlled studies exists. The aim of this randomised, controlled trial study was to assess the efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on TMD. The sample consisted of 80 consecutive referred patients who were randomly assigned to the splint group (n = 39) and the control group (n = 41). Subjects in the splint group were treated with a stabilisation splint, whereas subjects in the control group did not receive any treatment except counselling and instructions for masticatory muscle exercises which were given also to the subjects in the splint group. Outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) on facial pain intensity and clinical findings for TMD which were measured at baseline and after 1‐month follow‐up. The differences in change between the groups were analysed using regression models. Facial pain decreased and most of the clinical TMD findings resolved in both of the groups. The differences in changes in VAS or clinical TMD findings between the groups were not statistically significant. The findings of this study did not show that stabilisation splint treatment in combination with counselling and masticatory muscle exercises has additional benefit in relieving facial pain and increasing the mobility of the mandible than counselling and masticatory muscle exercises alone in a short time‐interval.     

松弛性及稳定性牙合垫对咀嚼肌肌电影响的探讨

目的 探讨松弛性He垫与稳定性He垫对咀嚼肌（咬肌、颞肌前束）肌电的影响。方法 20名健康志愿者不戴He垫与戴松弛性e垫和下颌稳定性He垫时分别作正中紧咬，比较颞肌前束，咬肌肌电积分值的改变。结果 戴人松弛性He垫和稳定性He垫后，颞肌前束，咬肌肌电积分值均有下降，戴松弛性He垫更显著。结论 松弛性He垫和稳定性He垫均对咀嚼肌有松弛作用。     

Efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on facial pain – 1‐year follow‐up

The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to assess the efficacy of stabilisation splint treatment on TMD‐related facial pain during a 1‐year follow‐up. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to two groups: splint group (n = 39) and control group (n = 41). The patients in the splint group were treated with a stabilisation splint and received counselling and instructions for masticatory muscle exercises. The controls received only counselling and instructions for masticatory muscles exercises. The outcome variables were the change in the intensity of facial pain (as measured with visual analogue scale, VAS) as well as the patients' subjective estimate of treatment outcome. The differences in VAS changes between the groups were analysed using variance analysis and linear regression models. The VAS decreased in both groups, the difference between the groups being not statistically significant. The group status did not significantly associate with the decrease in VAS after adjustment for baseline VAS, gender, age, length of treatment and general health status. The only statistically significant predicting factor was the baseline VAS, which was also confirmed by the mixed‐effect linear model. After 1‐year follow‐up, 27·6% of the patients in the splint group and 37·5% of the patients in the control group reported ‘very good' treatment effects. The findings of this study did not show stabilisation splint treatment to be more effective in decreasing facial pain than masticatory muscle exercises and counselling alone in the treatment of TMD‐related facial pain over a 1‐year follow‐up.     

调(牙合)治疗颞颌关节紊乱病疼痛效果及其可能机制的初步研究

目的:探讨调牙合对TMD疼痛的疗效及可能的机制。方法:TMD疼痛患者58例,将无以下3种咬合表现者归为A组(35例):内倾型深覆牙合、上下后牙同名牙尖相对、反牙合或锁牙合牙≥3处,有其表现者归为B组(23例)。结果:1)A组治疗后即刻及1月时VAS值都降低(P<0.01),B组仅治疗1月后降低(P<0.05);2)治疗1月后咬肌和颞肌前束肌电对称性A组升高(P<0.05),B组无变化(P>0.05);3)治疗1月后A组咬合接触点数及对称性增加(P<0.05),B组无变化(P>0.05);4)上述疗效与TM J病变程度、病程、年龄等因素无密切关系。结论:调牙合治疗可以缓解无明显诱因而发病的TMD疼痛,但其疗效受咬合类型的影响。