CLINICS

Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2017 May; 72(5): 276-283.
doi:10.6061/clinics/2017(05)04

Copyright © 2017 CLINICS

Oral motor and electromyographic characterization of adults with facial fractures: a comparison between different fracture severities

Amanda Pagliotto da Silva I , Fernanda Chiarion Sassi II , Endrigo Bastos III , Nivaldo Alonso III , Claudia Regina Furquim de Andrade II *

Divisao de Miologia Orofacial, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR

Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR

Divisao de Cirurgia Plastica, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, BR

*Corresponding author. E-mail: clauan@usp.br

received August 26, 2016; revised November 30, 2016; accepted February 13, 2017.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To characterize the oral motor system of adults with facial injuries and to compare the oral motor performance/function between two different groups.

METHODS:

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in 38 patients presenting with facial trauma who were assigned to the Division of Orofacial Myology of a Brazilian School Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (G1) consisted of 19 patients who were submitted to open reduction of at least one facial fracture, and Group 2 (G2) consisted of 19 individuals who were submitted to closed fracture reduction with maxillomandibular fixation. For comparison purposes, a group of 19 healthy volunteers was recruited. All participants underwent a clinical assessment that included an oral motor evaluation, assessment of the mandibular range of motions, and electromyographic assessment of the masticatory muscles.

RESULTS:

Clinical assessment of the oral motor organs indicated that G1 and G2 presented deficits related to the posture, position, and mobility of the oral motor organs. Patients also presented limited mandibular ranges of movement. Deficits were greater for individuals in G1, especially for maximal incisor opening. Additionally, patients in G1 and G2 presented a similar electromyographic profile of the masticatory muscles (i.e., patients with facial fractures presented lower overall muscle activity and significant asymmetrical activity of the masseter muscle during maximum voluntary teeth clenching).

CONCLUSION:

Patients in G1 and G2 presented similar functional deficits after fracture treatment. The severity of facial fractures did not influence muscle function/performance 4 months after the correction of fractures.

Keywords: Mandibular Fractures, Condylar Fractures, Open Reduction, Closed Reduction, Orofacial Functions


Articles from Clinics are provided here courtesy of
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo

2nd © Copyright 2007 - Revista Clinics - All rights reserved