The Influence of Customized Mouthguards on the Muscular Activity of the Masticatory Muscles at Maximum Bite and Motor Performance During Static and Dynamic Exercises

Abstract

Background Some studies have suggested that a mouthguard is a performance-enhancing device due to a remote voluntary contraction. The extent to which a mouthguard can induce this phenomenon, e.g., by potentially increasing biting, has not been clarified. This study’s aim was to investigate the muscular activity of the maxillary and peripheral musculature and motor performance during a rest and exercise test. Methods Our study comprised 12 active, male, professional young handball players (age 18.83 ± 0.39 years). Their performance, electromyographic (EMG) muscle activity (Σ), and lateral deviation (Δ) of the masticatory and peripheral musculature were measured during rest in a maximum bite force measurement, one-legged stand, a kettlebell swing exercise and a jump test while wearing a customized mouthguard (CMG) or not wearing one (Co). Results Maximum bite force measurements did not differ significantly in their mean values of muscle activity (Σ) for the masseter and temporalis muscles (Co 647.6 ± 212.8 µV vs. CMG 724.3 ± 257.1 µV p = 0.08) (Co 457.2 ± 135.5 µV vs. CMG 426.6 ± 169.3 µV p = 0.38) with versus without CMG. We found no differences in the mean activation values during a one-legged stand, the kettlebell swing, and jump test (Σ) in any of the muscles tested. Lateral deviations (Δ) wearing a CMG were significantly less in the erector spinae during the kettlebell swing (Co 5.33 ± 3.4 µV vs. CMG 2.53 ± 1.8 µV p = 0.01) and countermovement jump (Co 37.90 ± 30.6 µV vs. CMG 17.83 ± 22.3 µV p = 0.03) compared to the performance without a CMG. Jump height, rotation moment, and balance were unchanged with versus without CMG. Conclusion Our results at rest and during specific motor stress show no differences with or without a CMG. The improved peripheral muscular balance while wearing a CMG indicates improved muscular stabilization.

Acute effects of jaw clenching while wearing a customized bite-aligning mouthguard on muscle activity and force production during maximal upper body isometric strength

“…However, in accordance with Lässing et al., the present study found no significant differences in the activity of the masticatory muscles when comparing MG with respect to JAW condition, even though the cited study reported a more balanced activity of the masticatory muscles. 5 Schulze et al. associated the increased/decreased muscle activity with muscle weakness, possible imbalances or intercuspal disorders in the masticatory structure.…”

“…The correlation between the stomatognathic system and sports performance has been widely investigated. Most of the studies examined the effect of the oral motor function on certain neuromuscular performance parameters, such as the influence of jaw clenching on strength, 1 , 2 power, 3 , 4 , 5 muscle activation, 6 , 7 body posture 8 , 9 , 10 or stability. 5 , 11 There is evidence that jaw clenching promotes better neuromuscular responses through the mechanism of Concurrent Activation Potentiation (CAP).…”

“…Most of the studies examined the effect of the oral motor function on certain neuromuscular performance parameters, such as the influence of jaw clenching on strength, 1 , 2 power, 3 , 4 , 5 muscle activation, 6 , 7 body posture 8 , 9 , 10 or stability. 5 , 11 There is evidence that jaw clenching promotes better neuromuscular responses through the mechanism of Concurrent Activation Potentiation (CAP). 12 , 13 According to Ebben et al., this ergogenic mechanism, elicited by the remote voluntary contraction (RVC) of the mandible muscles, might promote an increased cortical pre-activation, major efficiency in the motor neuron activity and better reflex responses.…”

“…Therefore, wearing a MG may promote a better distribution of the occlusal loads both in the lateral and anterior-posterior direction contributing to a more balanced and powerful occlusion. 5 , 22 …”

“…Nonetheless, other investigators showed no positive effects on motor performance nor muscle activity when comparing the use and non-use of customized MG in lower limb power and stability tests. 5 …”