ライフサイエンスコーパス: bite force

1 re is a key determinant of jaw movements and bite force.

2 jaw articulation, which provides a powerful bite force.

3 skulls that allowed them to generate extreme bite forces.

4 lls that are optimized for exerting powerful bite forces.

5 ited both to cutting and to generating large bite forces.

6 l or the trochlear mechanisms with increased bite forces.

7 er stress due to increased muscle volume and bite forces.

8 cuspal inner incline surface with an applied biting force.

9 density in mandible under normal chewing and biting forces.

10 ble through a combination of: (1) prodigious bite forces (8,526-34,522 newtons [N]) and tooth pressur

11 The combination of a weak muscle-driven bite force, a very 'light' and 'open' skull architecture

12 The stress patterns and the estimated bite forces across the three simulated load cases sugges

13 iba, was not optimized to produce high molar bite force and appears to have been limited in its abili

14 volutionary effects of the trade-off between bite force and bite velocity.

15 ed significant positive correlations between bite force and flow rates for unstimulated whole saliva

16 Bite force and mechanical advantage (MA) estimates indic

17 ans), Didelphodon vorax has a high estimated bite force and other craniomandibular and dental feature

18 e results confirm an age-related decrease in bite force and salivary flow rates and show that, regard

19 and gender, the partial correlations between bite force and salivary flow rates remained significant

20 ropods tending toward gracile crania and low bite forces and ornithischian taxa exhibiting character

21 ing behaviour from trace evidence, estimated bite forces and tooth pressures, and studied tooth-bone

22 to balancing side muscle force ratios, peak bite forces, and joint reaction forces during unilateral

23 l that can be used to predict muscle forces, bite forces, and joint reaction forces would have many u

24 zed to study the biomechanics of feeding and bite force as well the effects of cranial kinesis on the

25 or increased skull size, muscle volume, and bite force at the cost of higher stress.

26 approx. 12% shorter than twitch L(O), and SM bite forces averaged 4.1 +/- 3.9 N/cm(2) (mean +/- S.D.)

27 Root mean square electromyography/bite-force calibrations determined subject-specific mass

28 eth, reduced chewing muscles, weaker maximum bite force capabilities, and a relatively smaller gut.

29 in a significant difference in mean percent bite force change in the 90- and 180-min time points com

30 ose observed in vivo and that peak predicted bite forces compare well to published experimental data.

31 Mean salivary secretion and bite force decrease with advancing age.

32 Giant tyrannosaurids uniquely maximized bite force despite elevated cranial stress, a strategy p

33 logy, we show that adult C. elegans generate bite forces during feeding on the order of 10 uN and tha

34 ormance by enabling the production of higher bite forces during the occlusal phase of the gape cycle

35 s significantly greater than that of the low-bite-force group as well as that of the medium-high-bite

36 each saliva type, the flow rate of the high-bite-force group was significantly greater than that of

37 rce group as well as that of the medium-high-bite-force group.

38 ld not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen sense

39 ship between salivary flow rates and maximal bite force in a community-based sample of men and women

40 comparisons showed a significant increase in bite forces in both CBD groups (P < 0.05) but not in the

41 Increased bite forces in oviraptorid oviraptorosaurians compared t

42 and show that, regardless of age or gender, bite force is correlated with salivary flow.

43 The bite force is greater than the prey hardness, suggesting

44 Restrictive gape and high bite force may represent adaptation towards exploiting t

45 er and temporalis muscle activities (mV) per bite force (N) for each subject.

46 ticatory variables (masticatory performance, bite force, number of posterior functional tooth units,

47 re determined for activities consistent with bite forces of >1 to <=2 and >2 to <=5 N.

48 g the cuspal incline surface with an applied biting force (off-axis loading).

49 gn, we quantified the ontogenetic profile of bite-force performance in post-metamorphic Ceratophrys c

50 ures of their tooth structure, the estimated bite force produced, and their diet.

51 ata were derived from clinical examinations, bite force recordings, masticatory performance measureme

52 ided into four groups based on their maximal bite force score (low, medium low, medium high, and high

53 The high bite force seems crucial to overcome low or seasonal var

54 comparatively only few morphologies optimise bite force, species optimising this function may be less

55 er and temporalis muscle activities per 20-N bite-force (T20 N, microV), which defined thresholds.

56 e oviraptorids were capable of much stronger bite forces than herbivorous theropods among Ornithomimo

57 muscles of the jaw and bones, and estimated bite force through biomechanical models.

58 struct jaw adductor musculature and estimate bite force to investigate cranial function in each speci

59 that squirrels are more efficient at muscle-bite force transmission during incisor gnawing than guin

60 Bite force was assessed with a bilateral force transduce

61 Moreover, the bite force we measure corresponds to Hertzian contact st

62 Electromyography and bite-forces were measured during right and left incisor

63 opes indicate positive allometric scaling of bite force with reference to head and body size, results

64 pain relief, maximum pain relief, changes in bite force within and among the groups, psychoactive eff

65 optimized to provide the tooth with maximum biting force, withstanding millions of cycles of loads w

66 ical advantage, jaw velocity, bite duration, bite force, work and power.