Dental Occlusal Changes Induce Motor Cortex Neuroplasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modification to the dental occlusion may alter oral sensorimotor functions. Restorative treatments aim to restore sensorimotor functions; however, it is unclear why some patients fail to adapt to the restoration and remain with sensorimotor complaints. The face primary motor cortex (face-M1) is involved in the generation and control of orofacial movements. Altered sensory inputs or motor function can induce face-M1 neuroplasticity. We took advantage of the continuous eruption of the incisors in Sprague-Dawley rats and used intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) to map the jaw and tongue motor representations in face-M1. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that multiple trimming of the right mandibular incisor, to keep it out of occlusal contacts for 7 d, and subsequent incisor eruption and restoration of occlusal contacts, can alter the ICMS-defined features of jaw and tongue motor representations (i.e., neuroplasticity). On days 1, 3, 5, and 7, the trim and trim-recovered groups had 1 to 2 mm of incisal trimming of the incisor; a sham trim group had buccal surface trimming with no occlusal changes; and a naive group had no treatment. Systematic mapping was performed on day 8 in the naive, trim, and sham trim groups and on day 14 in the trim-recovered group. In the trim group, the tongue onset latency was shorter in the left face-M1 than in the right face-M1 (P < .001). In the trim-recovered group, the number of tongue sites and jaw/tongue overlapping sites was greater in the left face-M1 than in the right face-M1 (P = 0.0032, 0.0016, respectively), and the center of gravity was deeper in the left than in the right face-M1 (P = 0.026). Therefore, incisor trimming and subsequent restoration of occlusal contacts induced face-M1 neuroplasticity, reflected in significant disparities between the left and right face-M1 in some ICMS-defined features of the tongue motor representations. Such neuroplasticity may reflect or contribute to subjects' ability to adapt their oral sensorimotor functions to an altered dental occlusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".