English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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.

sports medicine - open/sports medicine - open

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