A new test protocol and device for measuring the cranio-cervical flexion test in participants with bruxism.
Mareile Jung, Annika Zind, Markus J Ernst
PMID 40491858WHAT IT FOUND
In ten people, the new NOD device showed no significant difference in neck muscle activity between those with and without bruxism during the craniocervical flexion test.
Both groups increased superficial muscle activity as the test became harder. The device is feasible for lab use but not proven for clinical decisions.
Key findings
01There were no significant group differences in resting muscle activity for the SCM (p = 0.69) or the masseter muscle (p = 0.55).
02During the staged CCFT, both groups showed increased normalized sEMG activity of the SCM and masseter muscles, but there was no significant group effect for the SCM (p = 0.65) or masseter (p = 0.55).
03Participants with bruxism failed to control more test stages (9 of 25) than controls (3 of 25), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.10).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was extremely small (n=10), making the study underpowered to detect real differences. The study was not blinded, which could introduce observation bias. Bruxism diagnosis relied on self-report and objective signs but was not independently evaluated by dentists. The study was designed as a feasibility pilot for the device, not as a definitive test of bruxism-related impairments. The device's 'force score index' feature was not used in the study and its clinical value remains unproven.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that bruxism causes impaired deep neck flexor function. The study found no significant differences in muscle activity between groups, and the small sample size means these null results are inconclusive rather than definitive proof of no impairment.