Oral Fine Motor Control Research Articles

Oral Fine Motor Control of Teeth Treated with Endodontic Microsurgery: A Single-Blinded Case-control Study

IntroductionPeriodontal mechanoreceptors (PMRs) are refined neural receptors present in abundance at the root apex and have a pivotal role in oral fine motor control. This case-control study aimed to evaluate the oral fine motor control of teeth treated with endodontic microsurgery (EMS) in comparison with the control teeth using a standardized behavioral biting task. MethodsFourteen eligible participants performed 5 trials of an oral fine motor control task that involved holding and splitting half of a peanut positioned on a force transducer with their EMS treated tooth and its contralateral control incisor tooth (28 teeth in total). The outcome variables were the mean food holding force, intra- and intertrial variability of the holding force, food splitting force, splitting duration, and the frequency of the stepwise splitting phase. The data were analyzed with parametric and nonparametric tests. ResultsThe results showed no statistically significant differences in the holding force, inter- and intratrial variability of the holding force, splitting force, or splitting duration between the teeth treated with EMS and the control (P > .05). However, there was a significantly higher frequency of stepwise ramp increase during the splitting phase with EMS treated teeth compared with the control (48% and 37%, respectively; P < .05). ConclusionsEMS treated teeth showed similar force regulation and oral fine motor control as the contralateral control. The findings of this study suggest that EMS treatment does not perturb the sensory information of PMRs and maintains the force regulation and oral fine motor control of the teeth.

Developmental and age-related changes in sensorimotor regulation of biting maneuvers in humans

Previous studies indicated distinct differences in biting and chewing behaviors between children and adults. However, these studies used different methodologies and failed to study age-related changes in the fine motor control of biting from childhood to adulthood. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate age-related changes in oral fine motor control in healthy children in comparison to adults. Sixty-five healthy children (3–17 years) were equally divided into five age-groups based on their dental eruption stages. Each participant was asked to hold half a peanut rested on a force transducer between two opposing anterior teeth for 3–4 s before splitting it. The force applied on the transducer was continuously monitored and recorded during food holding and splitting. The data obtained from the children subgroups were compared to an adult group (18–35 years). Results showed that the force regulation during food manipulation was higher and more variable in children with primary to early-permanent dentition stages compared to adults. Additionally, children with primary and early-mixed dentition showed longer food splitting duration than adults and exhibited a predominantly step-wise ramp-increase of force. The results of the present study showed age-related changes in fine motor control of food biting maneuvers. The results of the study also suggested that younger children with primary dentition show signs of immature oral fine motor control. However, with an increase in age and the accompanying structural changes, the oral fine motor control eventually transits to a more matured “adult-like” biting maneuvers.

Vibratory stimulus to the masseter muscle impairs the oral fine motor control during biting tasks

PurposeTo investigated the effect of vibratory stimulus on masseter muscles during oral fine motor biting tasks. MethodsSixteen healthy individuals (age: 24.5 ± 2.4 years) participated in experiment I during which the participants were asked to “hold and split” half a roasted peanut placed on a force transducer with their front teeth. The participant performed ten series with ten trials of the “hold and split” behavioral task while vibratory stimulus was applied on the masseter muscle every alternate series. Further, fourteen participants participated (age: 25.2 ± 4.8 years) in experiment II during which they performed a series each of the behavioral task at baseline, an adjusted baseline without and with vibration as well as with and without visual feedback. Hold and split forces along with the variability of hold force and duration and force rate during the split were measured. ResultsThe results of the study showed an increase in the magnitude of the hold force (P = 0.002), force rate during the split (P < 0.001) and a significant decrease in the duration of split (P < 0.001) due to the vibratory stimulus. However, there was no significant effect of the vibratory stimulus on the variability of hold forces (P = 0.879) or mean split force (P = 0.683) during the “hold and split” behavioral task. The results of experiment II also showed an increase in hold force due to the vibratory stimulus (P < 0.001). ConclusionsVibratory stimulus to the masseter muscles impairs the oral force control during a standardized biting task and provide further insight into the sensorimotor regulation of the masticatory system.

Perturbed oral motor control due to anesthesia during intraoral manipulation of food

Sensory information from periodontal mechanoreceptors (PMRs) surrounding the roots of natural teeth is important for optimizing the positioning of food and adjustment of force vectors during precision biting. The present experiment was designed to test the hypothesis; that reduction of afferent inputs from the PMRs, by anesthesia, perturbs the oral fine motor control and related jaw movements during intraoral manipulation of morsels of food. Thirty healthy volunteers with a natural dentition were equally divided into experimental and control groups. The participants in both groups were asked to manipulate and split a spherical candy into two equal halves with the front teeth. An intervention was made by anesthetizing the upper and lower incisors of the experimental group while the control group performed the task without intervention. Performance of the split was evaluated and the jaw movement recorded. The experimental group demonstrated a significant decrease in measures of performance following local anesthesia. However, there was no significant changes in the duration or position of the jaw during movements in the experimental and control group. In conclusion, transient deprivation of sensory information from PMRs perturbs oral fine motor control during intraoral manipulation of food, however, no significant alterations in duration or positions of the jaw during movements can be observed.

Fine motor control of the jaw following alteration of orofacial afferent inputs

ObjectiveThe study was designed to investigate if alteration of different orofacial afferent inputs would have different effects on oral fine motor control and to test the hypothesis that reduced afferent inputs will increase the variability of bite force values and jaw muscle activity, and repeated training with splitting of food morsel in conditions with reduced afferent inputs would decrease the variability and lead to optimization of bite force values and jaw muscle activity.Material methodsForty-five healthy volunteers participated in a single experimental session and were equally divided into incisal, mucosal, and block anesthesia groups. The participants performed six series (with ten trials) of a standardized hold and split task after the intervention with local anesthesia was made in the respective groups. The hold and split forces along with the corresponding jaw muscle activity were recorded and compared to a reference group.ResultsThe hold force and the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the masseter muscles during the hold phase were significantly higher in the incisal and block anesthesia group, as compared to the reference group (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant effect of groups on the split force (P = 0.975) but a significant decrease in the EMG activity of right masseter in mucosal anesthesia group as compared to the reference group (P = 0.006). The results also revealed that there was no significant effect of local anesthesia on the variability of the hold and split force (P < 0.677). However, there was a significant decrease in the variability of EMG activity of the jaw closing muscles in the block anesthesia group as compared to the reference group (P < 0.041), during the hold phase and a significant increase in the variability of EMG activity of right masseter in the mucosal anesthesia group (P = 0.021) along with a significant increase in the EMG activity of anterior temporalis muscle in the incisal anesthesia group, compared to the reference group (P = 0.018), during the split phase.ConclusionsThe results of the present study indicated that altering different orofacial afferent inputs may have different effects on some aspects of oral fine motor control. Further, inhibition of afferent inputs from the orofacial or periodontal mechanoreceptors did not increase the variability of bite force values and jaw muscle activity; indicating that the relative precision of the oral fine motor task was not compromised inspite of the anesthesia. The results also suggest the propensity of optimization of bite force values and jaw muscle activity due to repeated splitting of the food morsels, inspite of alteration of sensory inputs.Clinical relevanceSkill acquisition following a change in oral sensory environment is crucial for understanding how humans learn and re-learn oral motor behaviors and the kind of adaptation that takes place after successful oral rehabilitation procedures.

Effects of experimental craniofacial pain on fine jaw motor control: a placebo-controlled double-blinded study.

The aim of the experiment was to test the hypothesis that experimental pain in the masseter muscle or temporomandibular joint (TMJ) would perturb the oral fine motor control, reflected in bigger variability of bite force values and jaw muscle activity, during repeated splitting of food morsels. Twenty healthy volunteers participated in four sessions. An intervention was made by injection of either 0.2 ml of monosodium glutamate/isotonic saline (MSG/IS) (randomized) in either the masseter or TMJ (randomized). The participants were asked to hold and split a flat-faced placebo tablet with their anterior teeth, thirty times each at baseline, during intervention and post-intervention. Pain was measured using a 0-10 visual analog scale. The force applied by the teeth to "hold" and "split" the tablet along with the corresponding electromyographic (EMG) activity of the jaw muscles and subject-based reports on perception of pain was recorded. The data analysis included a three-way analysis of variance model. The peak pain intensity was significantly higher during the painful MSG injections in the TMJ (6.1 ± 0.4) than the injections in masseter muscle (5.5 ± 0.5) (P = 0.037). Variability of hold force was significantly smaller during the MSG injection than IS injection in the masseter (P = 0.024). However, there was no significant effect of intervention on the variability of split force during the masseter injections (P = 0.769) and variability of hold and split force during the TMJ injections (P = 0.481, P = 0.545). The variability of the EMG activity of the jaw muscles did not show significant effects of intervention. Subject-based reports revealed that pain did not interfere in the ability to hold the tablet in 57.9 and 78.9 %, and the ability to split the tablet in 78.9 and 68.4 %, of the participants, respectively, during painful masseter and TMJ injections. Hence, experimental pain in the masseter muscle or TMJ did not have any robust effect in terms of bigger variability of bite force and jaw muscle activity, during repeated splitting of food morsels.