Developing a New Appliance to Dissipate Mechanical Load on Teeth and Improve Limitation of Vertical Mouth Opening

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The principle of leverage to superpose the convex surfaces of two shells was applied to develop a device for treating limitation of mouth opening and called it the "shell-shaped mouth opener" and analyzed pressure on the teeth with the TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance.

Material and Methods: To compare the TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance, pressure on the teeth in the dentition model with both devices was analyzed using the Inastomer^® flexible conductive sensor.

Results: The load was better dispersed to each tooth in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance in the all quadrants compared to the TheraBite^® appliance.

Conclusions: The present study revealed that the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance which was originally invented in our lab, dissipated the mechanical load on teeth more evenly than the TheraBite^® appliance.

J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013 (Jul-Sep);4(3):e4

doi:10.5037/jomr.2013.4304

Accepted for publication: 19 September 2013

Keywords: mouth rehabilitation; dental stress analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The limitation of mouth opening is a condition marked by orofacial pain and a limited ability to open the mouth and can result due to tumours, trauma, inflammation, intra- or extracapsular disorders of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) [1-3]. Patients with limitation of mouth opening experience multiple problems related to exhibit restricted chewing, swallowing, and speaking [2]. They also require extra care for maintaining oral hygiene [2]. A variety of mouth opening appliances including rubber plugs, wooden tongue blades, and the TheraBite^® Jaw Motion Rehabilitation System™ (Atos Medical Inc., West Allis, WI, USA) have been used to treat the condition of mouth opening limitation [4]. The TheraBite^® appliance has shown greater efficacy than any other treatments [5,6]. It is a useful appliance for patients with sustained trismus particularly for those having undergone treatments for head and neck cancers [5,7]. It consists of two mouthpieces and the attached plastic handles. The mouthpieces are inserted between teeth of the upper and lower jaws. The patient's mouth can be opened by pressing together the plastic handles that force the mouthpieces to separate [2]. Some researchers revealed that muscular problems cause the limitation of mouth opening [8,9]. Other group implied that use of the TheraBite^® appliance results in pain because of the consequent rebounding spasms of the masticatory muscles [4] and this is because the TheraBite^® appliance is a high-torque appliance that provides a short-duration passive stretch [4]. In some cases, the fracture of a titanium reconstruction plates during the TheraBite^® appliance exercises is an adverse effect that can be explained by non-union of the fibula to the mandible, by the recurrence of carcinoma, or by excessive stretching forces [10]. When prescribing exercises with the TheraBite^® appliance in cases of bony reconstructions of the mandible, exercise forces should be limited until consolidation of the reconstruction is completed [10]. However, it was not previously reported how the high-torque using by the TheraBite^® appliance affected the pressure balance to teeth. In general, all mouth opening appliances only assist in simple jaw opening movements. To overcome these drawbacks, a new appliance was developed for treating limitation in mouth opening. Moreover, the pressure balance to the teeth using by the TheraBite^® appliance or a new appliance was investigated by using the Inastomer^® (Inaba Rubber Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) flexible conductive sensor.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Developing a new device

The principle of leverage to superpose the convex surfaces of two shells was applied to develop a device for treating limitation of opening and called it the "shell-shaped mouth opener" and further improved it to adapt to complex mandibular movements. Figures 1 shows this new device that consists of two main bodies and bases, two rods, two bite-parts and bases, mouth pads, and a rubber band. The main bodies superpose at their convex surfaces and the bite-part is attached to the body base. A stainless steel rod (2 mm diameter) penetrates through the bite-part and body base, contributing to its flexibility. The base of the bite-part overlaps the body base and the two main bodies are held together with a rubber band. The bite-parts are fitted with mouth pads made of polyethylene foam sheets, which act as a buffer and counterbalance the mechanical stress and torque against teeth. A new device is made of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) resins.

The mechanism of the "shell-shaped mouth opener" involves a fulcrum that superposes the convex surfaces of the main bodies, a power point that is formed when the patient grasps the edges of the bodies, and a point of action that involves the bite-parts. The leverage at the main bodies and bite-parts and the hinge movement at the main bodies act together adjusting the complex three-dimensional movements. The combination of leverage and hinge movements of the "shell-shaped mouth opener" enables it to adapt to the left-right asymmetric mandibular movements (Figure 2A - C). Moreover, when the patient grasps and eases the edge of the main bodies, the rubber band at the base of the bite-part expands and contracts gently to prevent added torque to the teeth and masticatory muscles.

Analysis of pressure on teeth

To compare the efficacy of the TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance, pressure on the teeth with either of the appliances in situ was analyzed using the Inastomer^® flexible conductive sensor (Figure 3A). The Inastomer^® sensors were attached at roots of each tooth in the dentition model and connected microcomputer. Electric resistance was measured by microcomputer. The Inastomer^® sensor is made with insulating rubber and electroconductive materials. When pressure is applied, the electroconductive materials make contact and conductive routes are formed and electric resistance is decreased. This is because the relationship between electric resistance and mechanical loading is inversely proportional. F-R property data of the Inastomer^® sensor (Figure 3B) which was provided by Inaba Rubber Co. Ltd. (Osaka, Japan) was adjusted using the Lagrange interpolating polynomial under the following conditions: temperature at 24.7 °C; loading at 3 kgf; and loading speed at 200 mm/min. Corrected F-R property data (Figure 3C) was used for analysis. Load value on each tooth was measured three times and the average was adopted as data. Statistical analysis was performed by Welch's t test and the number at significance level of P < 0.05 is red colour (Figures 4 - 7).

The two-digit system for the dental formula was used:

The Lagrange interpolating polynomial:

RESULTS

Pressure on teeth with the TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance

In the upper right quadrant, compared to the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance, the central incisor was loaded (Shell vs TheraBite^® 11 at 21.6 mm P = 0.0056) and other teeth were not loaded diffusely in the TheraBite^® appliance (Shell vs TheraBite^® 12 at 21.6 mm P = 0.00000086, 13 at 21.6 mm P = 0.018, 14 at 21.6 mm P = 0.026, 15 at 21.6 mm P = 0.00045). However, the canine was partially loaded and other teeth were loaded diffusely in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance. Moreover, the canine was gradually loaded as the interincisor opening was increased in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance (Shell vs TheraBite^® 13 at 12.3 mm P = 0.019, 13 at 13.3 mm P = 0.036, 13 at 15.7 mm P = 0.024, 13 at 17.6 mm P = 0.003, 13 at 21.6 mm P = 0.018). Furthermore, compared to the TheraBite^® appliance, all teeth in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance were loaded (Figure 4).

In the upper left quadrant, the canine was mainly loaded in TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance. The canine and the first premolar were partially loaded and the second premolar was gradually loaded as the interincisor opening was increased in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance (Shell vs TheraBite^® 25 at 15.7 mm P = 0.0067, 25 at 17.6 mm P = 0.0054, 25 at 21.6 mm P = 0.041). Additionally, compared to the TheraBite^® appliance, the lateral incisors were loaded in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance (Shell vs TheraBite^® 22 at 10.4 mm P = 0.0045, 22 at 10.8 mm P = 0.001, 22 at 12.3 mm P = 0.021, 22 at 13.3 mm P = 0.018, 22 at 15.7 mm P = 0.015, 22 at 17.6 mm P = 0.0024, 22 at 21.6 mm P = 0.001) (Figure 5).

In the lower left quadrant, the first premolar was slightly loaded, but all teeth were weakly loaded in TheraBite^® appliance. As the distance of the interincisor opening was gradually increased, the canine, the first premolar, and the second premolar were gradually loaded in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance. Moreover, the lateral incisors were loaded in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance (Shell vs TheraBite^® 32 at 10.4 mm P = 0.0073, 32 at 10.8 mm P = 0.0054, 32 at 12.3 mm P = 0.0086, 32 at 13.3 mm P = 0.006, 32 at 15.7 mm P = 0.000096, 32 at 17.6 mm P = 0.000055, 32 at 21.6 mm P = 0.00015). Compared to the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance, all teeth in TheraBite^® appliance were not loaded effectively in the lower left quadrant (Figure 6).

In lower right quadrant, as the distance of the interincisor opening was gradually increased, the canine was loaded in TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance. However, other teeth were not loaded effectively in the TheraBite^® appliance. Compared to the TheraBite^® appliance, the central (Shell vs TheraBite^® 41 at 10.4 mm P = 0.00019, 41 at 10.8 mm P = 0.012, 41 at 12.3 mm P = 0.004, 41 at 13.3 mm P = 0.013, 41 at 15.7 mm P = 0.014, 41 at 17.6 mm P = 0.01, 41 at 21.6 mm P = 0.0000026) and lateral incisors (Shell vs TheraBite^® 42 at 10.4 mm P = 0.00062, 42 at 10.8 mm P = 0.0089, 42 at 12.3 mm P = 0.000037, 42 at 13.3 mm P = 0.0044, 42 at 15.7 mm P = 0.0019, 42 at 17.6 mm P = 0.000097, 42 at 21.6 mm P = 0.00013) were loaded in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance (Figure 7).

These results indicated that the load was better dispersed to each tooth in the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance in the all quadrants compared to the TheraBite^® appliance.

DISCUSSION

The limitation of mouth opening occurs frequently due to tumours, trauma, inflammation, TMJ disorders, and their treatment. Regardless of the relative commonness of this condition and its harmful effects on daily functioning and quality of life, there are only few studies concerning the treatment of limitation of mouth opening and no standard care exists [4]. Although physical therapy, hyperbaric oxygen [11], pentoxifylline [12], botulinum toxin injection [13], and surgical coronoidectomy [3] have been used for treating the condition. However, mouth opening appliances provide a conservative approach to therapy in addition to being easy to use and having better efficacy than physiotherapy and surgery [14,15]. Several mouth opening appliances have been developed for the treatment of limitation of mouth opening.

In the present study, the Inastomer^® flexible conductive sensor was used to analyze the pressure on teeth. To our knowledge, there were no reports that the Inastomer^® flexible conductive sensor was used to analyze the pressure on teeth. However, it is useful tool to measure the pressure on teeth. Analysis of pressure on teeth due to mouth opening appliances revealed that the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance dissipated the mechanical load on teeth more evenly than the TheraBite^® appliance (Figures 4 - 7). Well-balanced load on teeth was relied on the constitution of the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance. The combination of leverage and hinge movements enabled the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance to adapt to complex mandibular movements, and the mouth pads helped to evenly distribute the mechanical stress and torque. In this regard, the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance may be superior in reducing the overconcentration of particular tooth during the treatment of limitation of mouth opening, which is paramount for patient compliance and positive therapy outcomes [16] and contribute to avoid the fracture of a titanium reconstruction plates [10]. However, to confirm whether the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance is superior to the TheraBite^® appliance, further research need to compare the TheraBite^® appliance and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance and to establish the best way to use the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance for the treatment of limitation of opening in vivo study.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed that the shell-shaped mouth opening appliance dissipated the mechanical load on teeth more evenly than the TheraBite^® appliance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

This study was funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (Grand no.19926004). The authors declare that they have no competing interests. We thank Dr. Takao Akiyama for advice and assistance in conducting the pressure measuring experiments on teeth with the TheraBite^® and the shell-shaped mouth opening appliances. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

REFERENCES

1. Dijkstra PU, Sterken MW, Pater R, Spijkervet FK, Roodenburg JL. Exercise therapy for trismus in head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2007 Apr;43(4):389-94. Epub 2006 Sep 18.
   [Medline: 16979926] [doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.04.003]
2. Melchers LJ, Van Weert E, Beurskens CH, Reintsema H, Slagter AP, Roodenburg JL, Dijkstra PU. Exercise adherence in patients with trismus due to head and neck oncology: a qualitative study into the use of the Therabite. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Sep;38(9):947-54. Epub 2009 May 2.
   [Medline: 19414238] [doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.04.003]
3. Bhrany AD, Izzard M, Wood AJ, Futran ND. Coronoidectomy for the treatment of trismus in head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope. 2007 Nov;117(11):1952-6.
   [Medline: 17767087] [doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31812eee13]
4. Stubblefield MD, Manfield L, Riedel ER. A preliminary report on the efficacy of a dynamic jaw opening device (dynasplint trismus system) as part of the multimodal treatment of trismus in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Aug;91(8):1278-82.
   [Medline: 20684911] [doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.05.010]
5. Buchbinder D, Currivan RB, Kaplan AJ, Urken ML. Mobilization regimens for the prevention of jaw hypomobility in the radiated patient: a comparison of three techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Aug;51(8):863-7.
   [Medline: 8336223] [doi: 10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80104-1]
6. Dijkstra PU, Kalk WW, Roodenburg JL. Trismus in head and neck oncology: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2004 Oct;40(9):879-89. Review.
   [Medline: 15380165] [doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.04.003]
7. Cohen EG, Deschler DG, Walsh K, Hayden RE. Early use of a mechanical stretching device to improve mandibular mobility after composite resection: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jul;86(7):1416-9.
   [Medline: 16003674] [doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.035]
8. La Touche R, París-Alemany A, von Piekartz H, Mannheimer JS, Fernández-Carnero J, Rocabado M. The influence of cranio-cervical posture on maximal mouth opening and pressure pain threshold in patients with myofascial temporomandibular pain disorders. Clin J Pain. 2011 Jan;27(1):48-55.
   [Medline: 20733480] [doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181edc157]
9. Schmid-Schwap M, Bristela M, Kundi M, Piehslinger E. Sex-specific differences in patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 2013 Winter;27(1):42-50.
   [Medline: 23424719] [doi: 10.11607/jop.970]
10. Kamstra JI, Roodenburg JL, Beurskens CH, Reintsema H, Dijkstra PU. TheraBite exercises to treat trismus secondary to head and neck cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2013 Apr;21(4):951-7. Epub 2012 Oct 4.
    [Medline: 23052916] [doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1610-9] [FREE Full Text]
11. King GE, Scheetz J, Jacob RF, Martin JW. Electrotherapy and hyperbaric oxygen: promising treatments for postradiation complications. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Sep;62(3):331-4.
    [Medline: 2810138] [doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90344-2]
12. Chua DT, Lo C, Yuen J, Foo YC. A pilot study of pentoxifylline in the treatment of radiation-induced trismus. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug;24(4):366-9.
    [Medline: 11474263] [doi: 10.1097/00000421-200108000-00010]
13. Stubblefield MD, Levine A, Custodio CM, Fitzpatrick T. The role of botulinum toxin type A in the radiation fibrosis syndrome: a preliminary report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):417-21.
    [Medline: 18295617] [doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.022]
14. Gibbons AJ, Abulhoul S. Use of a Therabite appliance in the management of bilateral mandibular coronoid hyperplasia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Sep;45(6):505-6. Epub 2006 Jul 13.
    [Medline: 16842894] [doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2006.05.005]
15. Fernández Ferro M, Fernández Sanromán J, Sandoval Gutierrez J, Costas López A, López de Sánchez A, Etayo Pérez A. Treatment of bilateral hyperplasia of the coronoid process of the mandible. Presentation of a case and review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008 Sep 1;13(9):E595-8. Review.
    [Medline: 18758406]
16. DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9):794-811.
    [Medline: 12218770] [doi: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00009]