| Literature DB >> 32045439 |
Elena Amaricai1, Roxana Ramona Onofrei1, Oana Suciu1, Corina Marcauteanu2, Eniko Tunde Stoica2, Meda Lavinia Negruțiu3, Vlad Laurentiu David4, Cosmin Sinescu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posture is influenced by many factors and dental occlusion seems to have its role on postural stabilization. Our rationale to perform the study was to find out if there are differences of static plantar pressure and stabilometric parameters depending on different dental conditions.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32045439 PMCID: PMC7012393 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Subjects’ demographic characteristics.
| Variables | |
|---|---|
| 22.94 ± 2.52 | |
| 29 (30.5) | |
| 66 (69.5) | |
| 64.17 ± 12.51 | |
| 168.02 ± 8.23 | |
| 22.61 ± 3.71 |
n: number of subjects; SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index.
Static plantar pressure load distribution.
| Variables | Mandibular postural position | Maximum intercuspation | Bitingon cotton rolls | Maximum mouth opening |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49.85 ± 3.87 | 49.47 ± 4.61 | 49.43 ±4.83 | 49.71 ± 4.69 | |
| 19.92 ± 8.08 | 19.69 ± 8.61 | 19.62 ± 8.93 | 19.63 ± 8.87 | |
| 37 ± 8.29 | 36.72 ± 8.63 | 36.92 ± 8.11 | 37.24 ± 9.61 | |
| 43.19 ± 10.85 | 43.68 ± 10.83 | 43.25 ± 10.46 | 43.23 ± 11.84 | |
| 50.15 ± 3.87 | 50.49 ± 4.57 | 50.57 ± 4.83 | 50.29 ± 4.69 | |
| 22.08 ± 6.62 | 21.51 ± 7.06 | 21.88 ± 6.68 | 22.36 ± 7.38 | |
| 31.62 ± 9.13 | 30.81 ± 9.05 | 30.97 ± 9.47 | 32.05 ± 9.41 | |
| 46.42 ± 11.08 | 47.63 ± 11.33 | 47.07 ± 11.85 | 45.73 ± 11.69 |
Data are presents as mean ± standard deviation; MT1: 1st metatarsal head; MT5: 5th metatarsal head.
Stabilometric data.
| Mandibular postural position | Maximum intercuspation | Biting on cotton rolls | Maximum mouth opening | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.97 ± 7.91 | 1.29 ± 9.38 | 0.75 ± 9.83 | 1.38 ± 9.88 | NS | |
| 3.27 ± 14.17 | 1.42 ± 13.81 | 2.27 ± 12.81 | 2.94 ± 13.99 | NS | |
| 13.34 [7.36–20.45] | 13 [8.56–19.98] | 12.73 [8.5–17.66] | 14.21 [9.89–21.39] | NS | |
| 245 [215–275] | 237 [206–260.25] | 239 [215.25–261.25] | 250 [221–286] | 0.0001 | |
| 51 [34.5–92.25] | 36 [25–66] | 46 [28–74.5] | 47 [29–84.75] | 0.001 | |
| 49 [43–65.5] | 50 [44–61] | 51 [44–59.75] | 55 [48–68.75] | 0.003 |
* Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation;
** Data are presented as median [interquartile range]; COP: centre of pressure; NS: not significant.
Fig 1Stabilometric data comparison.
Box plots (median, 95% confidence interval, interquartile range) describe the COP path length (A), 90% confidence area (B), maximum COP speed (C) and COP displacement (D) according to the condition. (*—p<0.05).