Electromyographic Analysis of Masticatory and Accessory Muscles in Subjects With Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Three-Arm Comparative Clinical Study

Aim This study compares the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the masticatory and accessory muscles in patients with natural teeth and those wearing full-mouth fixed prostheses supported by implants. Method In this study, 30 subjects of 30-69 years performed static and dynamic EMG measurements of masticatory and accessory muscles (masseter, anterior temporalis, SCM, and anterior digastric) and were divided into three groups: Group 1 (G1, Control, Dentate), comprising 10 subjects with 14 or more natural teeth (30-51 years of age); Group 2 (G2, single arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis) composed of 10 patients with unilateral edentulism who were successfully rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses in the maxilla or mandible, restoring occlusion to 12-14 teeth per arch; (39-61 years of age); and Group 3 (G3, full mouth implant-supported fixed prosthesis) with 10 subjects with completely edentulous arches with full mouth implant-supported fixed prosthesis with 12 occluding pairs of teeth (46-69 years of age). The left and right masseter, anterior temporalis, superior sagittal, and anterior digastric muscles were examined at rest, as well as maximum voluntary clenching (MVC), swallowing, and unilateral chewing. On muscle bellies, disposable, pre-gelled silver/silver chloride bipolar surface electrodes were parallel to muscle fibers. BIO-PAKeight® channels recorded electrical muscle activity (Bio-EMG III, BioResearch Associates, Inc. Brown Deer, WI). Results Full mouth embed upheld fixed prostheses patients had higher resting EMG activity than dentate and single curve implants. Full mouth embeds supported fixed prostheses and dentate patients had significantly different temporalis and digastric muscle mean EMG activity. Dentate people used their temporalis and masseter muscles more during the MVC than those with single-curve embedded upheld fixed prostheses limiting natural teeth or full-mouth implants. No event had the crucial item. Neck muscle differences were insignificant. All groups had higher SCM and digastric EMG activity during MVC than at rest. The single curve embed upheld fixed prosthesis group's temporalis and masseter muscles were significantly more active during gulping than the dentate and entire mouth groups. Single curve and entire mouth gulping SCM muscle EMG activity were similar. Digastric muscular EMG activity differed significantly between those with full-arch or partial-arch fixed prostheses and dentures. When instructed to bite one side, the masseter and temporalis front muscle mean EMG activity increased on the unrestricted side. Unilateral biting and temporalis muscle activation were comparable between groups. For the masseter muscle, the mean EMG was also higher on the functioning side, with no truly large differences between the three groups except for right-side biting when comparing the dentate and full mouth embed upheld fixed prosthesis groups and the single curve and full mouth groups. Conclusion The temporalis muscle activity difference was statistically significant in the full mouth implant-supported fixed prosthesis group. The three groups' static (clenching) sEMG analysis showed non-significant temporalis and masseter muscle activity increases. Full mouth swallowing increased digastric muscle activity. All three groups had similar unilateral chewing muscle activity except for the working side masseter muscle.