1 implications for our understanding of human
masticatory adaptation.
2 We compared
masticatory and appendicular muscles responses to microg
3 ncreased energy demands along with decreased
masticatory and digestive capacities is hypothesized to
4 iles of three putative muscle classes, limb,
masticatory,
and extraocular muscle (EOM), in adult mice
5 The evolving hominid
masticatory apparatus--traceable to a Late Miocene, chim
6 ey have been associated with a sophisticated
masticatory apparatus.
7 rior vault, many of which are related to the
masticatory apparatus.
8 n future studies into the functioning of the
masticatory apparatus.
9 Variation in the
masticatory behavior of hunter-gatherer and agricultural
10 tified similarities in the porcine and human
masticatory behaviors and discal properties.
11 prospective restoration damage under typical
masticatory conditions.
12 The neurobiological mechanisms of
masticatory control have been investigated in animal mod
13 ng (contact-load-slide-liftoff, simulating a
masticatory cycle), as compared with uni-axial loading,
14 ng elicited a similar response, indicating a
masticatory effect on the gingiva.
15 as a statistically significant difference in
masticatory efficiency between groups (P = 0.006).
16 y in detail the jaw movements and associated
masticatory electromyographic activity occurring during
17 11 left-sided chewing cycles and associated
masticatory electromyographic activity were sampled from
18 efits, it appears that selection for smaller
masticatory features in Homo would have been initially m
19 by dental restorations: Clinical variables (
masticatory force and cuspal curvature) identify closely
20 nearly 2 million (a 13% reduction) and total
masticatory force required would have declined by 15%.
21 chews per year by another 5%, and decreased
masticatory force requirements by an additional 12%.
22 The removal of
masticatory forces in periostin-null mice rescue the per
23 these restorations are subjected to greater
masticatory forces.
24 (T1), at 110 days (T2) and after 6 months of
masticatory function (T3).
25 gnathic pathologies, tooth loss, and loss of
masticatory function.
26 three membrane bones directly involved with
masticatory function: (1) as nodules on the dorso-caudal
27 tion from hunting to farming, supporting the
masticatory-
functional hypothesis for the mandible and s
28 ignificantly impairs speech, swallowing, and
masticatory functions.
29 Similarly, there were no differences between
masticatory (
gingiva and palate) and other mucosa (P >0.
30 ve been postulated, such as genetic factors,
masticatory hyperfunction, trauma, and continued growth,
31 Masticatory hypermuscularity resulted in significantly a
32 late elevation is temporally associated with
masticatory jaw movement.
33 These findings support the hypothesis that
masticatory jaw movements contain sex-specific features.
34 on, and secretion and can be classified into
masticatory,
lining, and specialized mucosa that are kno
35 to examining PDLs that supported teeth under
masticatory loading and eruptive forces, 2 additional me
36 Masticatory loading involves the opposing tooth sliding
37 of monolithic ceramic crowns under simulated
masticatory loading.
38 of hard objects that required powerful peak
masticatory loads.
39 In the oral cavity,
masticatory mucosa covers the hard palate and gingiva.
40 The epithelium of
masticatory mucosa is relatively thick compared to other
41 hemorrhagic, fibrous enlargement of the oral
masticatory mucosa.
42 ion of lining mucosa into an epithelium with
masticatory mucosa/ skin-specific characteristics.
43 The role of
masticatory muscle activation on pain in temporomandibul
44 (ChTB) binding were examined for trigeminal
masticatory muscle and cutaneous afferent neurons.
45 nd the effect of an adrenergic activation on
masticatory muscle blood flow under various conditions.
46 mMyBP-C is localized not only within the
masticatory muscle fibers, but also at or near their cel
47 This study tested the hypothesis that
masticatory muscle forces exerted during static biting a
48 e findings emphasize the important role that
masticatory muscle function plays in the ontogeny of the
49 utoantibodies have been found, especially in
masticatory muscle myositis.
50 g recognized by the autoantibodies in canine
masticatory muscle myositis.
51 .e., chewing bubble gum for 6 min) increases
masticatory muscle pain in patients, but not in asymptom
52 Because chewing-induced
masticatory muscle pain was significantly greater in fem
53 To test this relationship, we compared
masticatory muscle size and craniofacial dimensions in m
54 The findings support a causal role for
masticatory muscle tension in TMJD pain.
55 panel study examined the relationships among
masticatory muscle tension, emotional distress, and TMJD
56 In contrast,
masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both mod
57 Powerful
masticatory muscles are found in most primates, includin
58 Central nervous system organization of
masticatory muscles determines the magnitude of joint an
59 l situations such as critical care myopathy,
masticatory muscles do not lose mass.
60 oading in microgravity prevents atrophy, but
masticatory muscles have a different set point that mimi
61 ts show that the morphology of the skull and
masticatory muscles have allowed squirrels to specialise
62 ore nuanced insights into the functioning of
masticatory muscles.
63 e for the rhythmic activation of lingual and
masticatory muscles.
64 tions in individual muscle fibres and entire
masticatory muscles.
65 ay contribute to stiffness regulation of the
masticatory muscles.
66 ces in 287 genes between EOM and limb and/or
masticatory muscles.
67 jacent salivary glands, bone, dentition, and
masticatory musculature and apparatus.
68 The
masticatory musculature of rodents has evolved to enable
69 he temporomandibular joint and/or associated
masticatory musculature.
70 g canines and evidence of highly specialized
masticatory musculature.
71 osin binding protein-C family, which we call
masticatory myosin binding protein-C (mMyBP-C).
72 udy evaluates the effect of periodontitis on
masticatory performance and quality of life index.
73 Both the
masticatory performance and quality of life indicators s
74 rting structures has negative effects on the
masticatory performance and quality of life.
75 linical examinations, bite force recordings,
masticatory performance measurements, and two 24-hour di
76 The
masticatory performance was evaluated through continuous
77 ndependent samples (P <0.05) to evaluate the
masticatory performance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was
78 socio-demographic and masticatory variables (
masticatory performance, bite force, number of posterior
79 Masticatory sequences were divided into processing and s
80 These findings suggest that
masticatory soft palate movement is diminished during in
81 Masticatory stimulation in controls resulted in a signif
82 ting conditions followed by collection under
masticatory stimulation induced by the chewing of parafi
83 ganic protective components in saliva during
masticatory stimulation suggests its potential value as
84 llected from 60 subjects under conditions of
masticatory stimulation, flow rates were recorded, and m
85 e results support notions that a decrease in
masticatory stress among agriculturalists causes the man
86 facial ontogeny at 1.9 my, or to changes in
masticatory system loading associated with diet.
87 males, with no history of muscle pain in the
masticatory system participated in this study.
88 ibute to abnormal tooth wear and pain in the
masticatory system.
89 s them to function optimally during specific
masticatory tasks.
90 = 2.31, [95% CI: 1.40-3.82]) and functional
masticatory units <5 (HR = 2.40 [95% CI 1.55-3.73]).
91 The number of teeth and functional
masticatory units <5 were recorded.
92 flammation, >10 missing teeth and functional
masticatory units <5.
93 gated the influence of socio-demographic and
masticatory variables (masticatory performance, bite for
94 Income, education, and the
masticatory variables were not related to diet quality.