ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of Oral Masticatory Muscle Activity With Different Chewing Gums: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Electromyogram Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Effect of Chewing Gum on Head, Neck, and Facial Edema in Burn Patients: Doubled-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacial muscles, particularly those involved in mastication, play a pivotal role in the chewing process. Despite their influence on chewing, these muscles undergo alterations during mastication. Examining the relationship between chewed substances and muscle activity can provide insights into various pathological processes and aid in the development of therapeutic chewing techniques.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of different commercially available chewing gums on the activity of key masticatory muscles.
methodTwenty-two participants were recruited for the study. They were instructed to chew four commercially available gums: group 1 comprised sugar gum with a strong flavor; group 2 included gum containing sorbitol; group 3 consisted of gum containing xylitol; and group 4 provided sugar gum with a mild flavor. Electromyogram (EMG) recordings were utilized to assess muscle activity. Various aspects of muscle activity, including chewing time, maximum muscle potential, and coordination between different muscles, were evaluated. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using IBM SPSS software version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultAnalysis revealed that in terms of temporalis symmetry, group 2 exhibited the highest mean deviation, while for masseter symmetry, group 3 demonstrated the highest mean deviation. The total deviation for the temporalis and masseter muscles was 72.16% and 65.55%, respectively, indicating greater symmetry in the temporalis muscle. Additionally, group 3 displayed the highest mean deviation in both left and right-sided synergic activity of the muscles. The total deviation for the right and left sides was 64.34% and 65.67%, respectively.
conclusionThe findings suggest that sugar-free chewing gums elicit increased muscle activity compared to sugar-containing chewing gums. Furthermore, the utilization of calorie-free chewing gums with a firm texture was associated with better-coordinated muscle activity. These results provide valuable insights into the effects of different chewing gums on masticatory muscle function and coordination, which may have implications for therapeutic interventions and oral health management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.