THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY BECKER ET AL

Fig. 3. Left side of graph, represents EMG recordings for listed muscles for clenching without
anterior bite stop in place. Right side, represents EMG recordings for listed muscles for grind-
ing without anterior bite stop in place. (For conservation of space, numerical data listed is
only for clenching with anterior bite stop. Numerical data for grinding with anterior bite stop
is not included.)

Table I. Means ± standard deviations of electromyography values (units of measurements) from 4 muscles while clenching or
grinding, with or without the splint
Diagnostic anterior Temporalis anterior Temporalis posterior Masseter

Without splint With splint Without splint With splint Without splint With splint Without splint With splint

Clench 12 ± 9.1 9 ± 7.2 111 ± 42.4 20 ± 16.8 69 ± 37.3 9 ± 8.7 135 ± 71.6 59 ± 41.5
Grind 11 ± 9.4 8 ± 10.9 45 ± 25.0 10 ± 7.4 51 ± 20.8 16 ± 11.3 36 ± 27.6 17 ± 12.1

intervention effects from a series of 2 × 2 ANOVAs per-
formed for each site separately (for TA, F1,29 = 93.62,
P<.001; for TP, F1,29 = 21.73, P<.001; for MM, F1,29
= 44.46, P<.001). In addition, paired t tests comparing
splint versus no-splint for each site and each task sepa-
rately indicated significant effects of the interven-
tion for all 3 sites during both tasks (t29 ranged from
3.77-13.14, P<.001). No significant effects from the
task-by-intervention ANOVA were found for DA
(P<.05). Because there was not a significant effect of
the splint on DA EMG activity, DA was not included in
further follow-up analyses.
In comparing effect of intervention across sites,
Table I indicates that the reduction in EMG was most
pronounced for the TA and TP during the grind (dif-
ference = 35 for both sites) and TA during the clench

24 VOLUME 82 NUMBER 1