Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jul 16, 2022; 10(20): 6876-6889
Published online Jul 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i20.6876
Published online Jul 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i20.6876
Figure 3 Comparison of the average duration (mean ± SD) of the chewing cycle.
A: Comparison of the duration of the chewing cycle for free chewing of food; B: Comparison of the duration of the chewing cycle for unilateral chewing of candy; C: Comparison of the duration of the chewing cycle for unilateral chewing of almond; D: Free chewing candy process; E: Unilateral chewing candy process on the preferred side (PS); F: Unilateral chewing candy process on the non-preferred side (NPS); G: Free chewing almond process; H: Unilateral chewing almond process on the PS; I: Unilateral chewing almond process on the NPS. aComparison to the non-bruxism group, P < 0.05; bComparison to the centric bruxism group, P <0.05; cComparison of the duration of the first chewing cycle and the subsequent total 20 chewing cycles within each group, P < 0.05. CB: Centric bruxism; ECB: Eccentric bruxism; NB: Non-bruxism; CY: Chewing cycle.
- Citation: Lan KW, Jiang LL, Yan Y. Comparative study of surface electromyography of masticatory muscles in patients with different types of bruxism. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(20): 6876-6889
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i20/6876.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i20.6876