Pain‐free bite force in a healthy population: Within‐session test–retest reliability in different sitting positions

Author:

Mitchell Andrew12ORCID,Heales Luke3,Treleaven Julia1,Too Brendan14,Tyrrell Ryan15,Dinsdale Alana1

Affiliation:

1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Queensland Australia

2. Physiotherapy Department The Prince Charles Hospital Chermside Queensland Australia

3. School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences Central Queensland University Rockhampton Queensland Australia

4. Joint Health Command, Serco RAAF Base Williamtown New South Wales Australia

5. Physiotherapy Department Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital Coopers Plains Queensland Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPain‐free bite force (PFBF) is a promising measure to evaluate bite function in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), yet the reliability of the measure is unknown.ObjectivesEstablish the (1) within‐session test–retest reliability of PFBF in a healthy population for a single and mean of three trials in supported and unsupported sitting; (2) standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC).MethodsThirty healthy participants (n = 15 female, mean [SD] age = 34.4 [11.0] years) completed two sessions (30–60 min apart) comprising three PFBF trials on each side, in both supported and unsupported sitting, to provide data for 60 (30 participants × two sides) test–retest assessments. Test–retest reliability for the first trial and mean of three trials in each position were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), before calculating the corresponding SEM and MDC for males (M) and females (F) respectively.ResultsWithin‐session reliability was considered excellent for a single trial in supported sitting (ICC = 0.85; SEM M/F = 99/84 N; MDC M/F = 275/232 N) and unsupported sitting (ICC = 0.91; SEM M/F = 72/59 N, MDC M/F = 200/163 N), and for a mean of three trials in supported sitting (ICC = 0.89; SEM M/F = 66/79 N, MDC M/F = 182/220 N) and unsupported sitting (ICC = 0.92; SEM M/F = 64/59 N, MDC M/F = 177/164 N).ConclusionSingle and a mean of three trials in supported and unsupported sitting appear reliable methods to measure PFBF in a healthy population. Testing PFBF using a mean of three trials in unsupported sitting appears superior over other methods though due to higher test–retest reliability, and lower SEM and MDC. Future studies should examine the reliability of PFBF in TMD populations.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3