The effect of bolus properties on muscle activation patterns and TMJ loading during unilateral chewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mastication is a vital human function and uses an intricate coordination of muscle activation to break down food. Collection of detailed muscle activation patterns is complex and commonly only masseter and anterior temporalis muscle activation are recorded. Chewing is the orofacial task with the highest muscle forces, potentially leading to high temporomandibular joint (TMJ) loading. Increased TMJ loading is often associated with the onset and progression of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Hence, studying TMJ mechanical stress during mastication is a central task. Current TMD self-management guidelines suggest eating small and soft pieces of food, but patient safety concerns inhibit in vivo investigations of TMJ biomechanics and currently no in silico model of muscle recruitment and TMJ biomechanics during chewing exists. For this purpose, we have developed a state-of-the-art in silico model, combining rigid body bones, finite element TMJ discs and line actuator muscles. To solve the problems regarding muscle activation measurement, we used a forward dynamics tracking approach, optimizing muscle activations driven by mandibular motion. We include a total of 256 different combinations of food bolus size, stiffness and position in our study and report kinematics, muscle activation patterns and TMJ disc von Mises stress. Computed mandibular kinematics agree well with previous measurements. The computed muscle activation pattern stayed stable over all simulations, with changes to the magnitude relative to stiffness and size of the bolus. Our biomedical simulation results agree with the clinical guidelines regarding bolus modifications as smaller and softer food boluses lead to less TMJ loading. The computed mechanical stress results help to strengthen the confidence in TMD self-management recommendations of eating soft and small pieces of food to reduce TMJ pain.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".