Search for a command to run...
Relevance. Selecting appropriate methods for analyzing masticatory muscle electromyograms remains an important issue in functional dentistry, as these methods enable objective assessment of electromyographic activity during therapeutic and preventive interventions and can serve as indicators of treatment effectiveness. Objective. To conduct a comparative analysis of methods for identifying chewing patterns during different chewing tests in patients with normal occlusion of the permanent dentition. Materials and methods. Electromyographic recordings from 12 patients aged 16–20 years were analyzed using the Synapsis system. Chewing patterns were assessed using standard functional tests, including habitual chewing, clenching on cotton rolls, and graded clenching. Parameters were evaluated separately for the right and left sides. The EMG software enabled real-time assessment of maximum and mean amplitude values, automatic calculation of the torsional index and the masseteric index (an intermuscular balance index), and evaluation of the bilateral symmetry of temporalis and masseter muscle activity. Results. During the habitual chewing test, the mean summed amplitude of the temporalis muscles was 449.86 ± 18.35 μV, whereas that of the masseter muscles was 424.19 ± 17.56 μV. The masseteric index was 94.42 ± 2.87%, which was within the normal range. The study showed that individuals with a mesocephalic pattern, an average facial growth pattern, and normal occlusion typically exhibited a balanced chewing pattern, with the masseteric index ranging from 80% to 100% during habitual chewing, clenching on cotton rolls, and graded clenching. In contrast, during unilateral chewing tests, EMG activity was not a decisive indicator of chewing pattern. However, these parameters may be useful in the evaluation of patients with unilateral dental arch defects during prosthetic treatment or in those with transverse malocclusion. Conclusion. In patients with normal occlusion of the permanent dentition, habitual chewing, clenching on cotton rolls, and graded clenching appear to be the most informative tests for identifying chewing patterns, whereas unilateral chewing tests produce inconsistent results.