METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.
SIGNIFICANCE: This chewing simulation test showed that Tetric EvoCeram composites exhibited a rougher surface when opposing lithium disilicate ceramic compared to opposing zirconia ceramic.
Methods: A total of eighteen (18) malocclusion patients were identified. Malocclusion patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on the bracket selection (conventional, self-ligating, and ceramic bracket) with 6 patients for each group. sEMG of muscles were done using a two-channel electromyography device, where pregelled and self-adhesive electrodes (bilateral) were applied. Chewing and clenching of masseter and temporalis muscle activity were recorded for 20 s pre and 6 months of orthodontic treatment using sEMG (frequency 60 Hz). The data were analysed by using repeated measures ANOVA in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0.
Results: Chewing and clenching for masseter muscle showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in sEMG activity of three types of the brackets. However, for temporalis muscle, there was a significant difference found in sEMG activity during chewing (P < 0.05) and clenching (P < 0.05) between these three brackets.
Conclusion: The activity of temporalis muscle showed significant changes in chewing and clenching, where the conventional group demonstrated better muscle activity pre and at six months of fixed appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several electronic databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies published until July 2015.
RESULTS: EMG can be used in both diagnosis and treatment purpose to record neuromuscular activity. In dentistry, we can utilize EMG to evaluate muscular activity in function such as chewing and biting or parafunctional activities such as clenching and bruxism. In case of TMJ and myofascial pain disorders, EMG widely is used in the last few years.
CONCLUSIONS: EMG is one of biometric tests that occur in the modern evidence-based dentistry practice.