Normalization of the electromyographic signals of masticatory muscles during non-habitual chewing activity

• Autor(a) principal: Pelai, Elisa Bizetti
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Catro-Carletti, Ester Moreira de, Foltran-Mescollotto, Fabiana, Pires, Paulo Fernandes, Berzin, Fausto, Moraes, Marcio de, Rodrigues-Bigaton, Delaine
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8670961
• topic: Electromyography; Masticatory muscle; Mastication; Muscles

There is no consensus on the most appropriate method for normalizing electromyography (EMG) signals from masticatory muscles during isotonic activity. Aim: To analyze the best method for data processing of the EMG signal of the masticatory muscles during isotonic activity (non-habitual chewing), comparing raw data and different types of normalization. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. Women aged between 18 and 45 years were selected. Anthropometric data were collected (age, height, body mass index – BMI, masticatory preference) as well as EMG signal (root mean square – RMS) data for the anterior temporal and masseter bilaterally, and for the suprahyoid muscles, during isotonic (non-habitual chewing) and isometric tasks. EMG data were processed offline using Matlab® Software. The normalization of the EMG signal was carried out using the 2nd masticatory cycle, chosen at random, of the 20 cycles collected, the maximum RMS value, and the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). To analyze the best method of data processing for the isotonic data, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated. Descriptive data analysis was adopted, using the mean and standard deviation. ANOVA with repeated measures was used to detect significant differences between the methods of normalization. Statistical significance was set at 5% (α<0.05). Results: The final sample of this research was composed of 86 women. The volunteers presented an average age of 27.83±7.71 years and a mean BMI of 22.85±1.91 Kg/m2. Regarding masticatory preference, 73.25% reported the right side, and 26.75% the left side. Considering the comparison between the methods, the %CV measure of the 2nd cycle showed the lowest variation coefficient during biting for all the muscles from the raw data, RMS Max, and MVC (p=0.001, p=0.003, and p=0.001 respectively). Conclusion: In conclusion, for non-habitual chewing activity, the results of this study recommend data processing using normalization with the second cycle during chewing.