Citation Information :
Anastacio TH, de Moraes NB, de Moraes EJ, Quinelato V, Calasans-Maia JA, Martins CC, Aguiar T, Machado AN, Casado PL. Analysis of Active Oral Tactile Sensitivity in Individuals with Complete Natural Dentition. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (3):268-272.
Aim: To evaluate the active tactile sensitivity in individuals with complete natural dentition, determining the smallest thickness detected by the participants, and clarifying if there is a difference between the thicknesses analyzed.
Materials and methods: Active tactile sensitivity was evaluated in 40 research participants. Inclusion criteria included participants with complete natural dentition, without active or history of periodontal disease, absence of temporomandibular disorders, bruxism, and restorations in the evaluated area. Exclusion criteria included age below 18 years. The active tactile perception threshold was evaluated by using carbon sheets of different thicknesses (0, 12, 24, 40, 80, 100, and 200 μm), which were inserted in the participants’ premolars, bilaterally. The carbon sheet was inserted so as not to come into contact with the oral soft tissues. Subsequently, the participant occluded and was asked about the perception of the intraocclusal object 20 times in each occlusal contact. The collected data were tabulated considering the amount of positive and negative responses for each carbon thickness. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.
Results: The results showed that there was linearity in perception, on both sides, besides, the natural dentition was able to perceive difference in thickness from 12 μm.
Conclusion: We conclude that the 12 μm thickness is noticeable in occlusion and can be differentiated from other thicknesses in natural dentition and that there is no difference between the tactile sensitivity of the right and left sides.
Clinical significance: A better understanding of active oral tactile sensitivity will contribute to numerous clinical applications in dentistry, including occlusal adjustment in dental rehabilitation, dental implants prosthesis design, and survival of prosthetic rehabilitation.
Willis RD, DiCosimo CJ. The absence of proprioceptive nerve endings in the human periodontal ligament: the role of periodontal mechanoreceptors in the reflex control of mastication. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;48(2):108–115. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(79)90046-x.
Trulsson M, Johansson RS. Orofacial mechanoreceptors in humans: encoding characteristics and responses during natural orofacial behaviors. Behav Brain Res 2002;135(1–2):27–33. DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00151-1.
Trulsson M. Sensory-motor function of human periodontal Mechan oreceptors. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(4):262–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01629.x.
Trulsson M, Essick GK. Sensations evoked by microstimulation of single mechanoreceptive afferents innervating the human face and mouth. J Neurophysiol 2010;103(4):1741–1747. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01146.2009.
Jacobs R, Steenberghe D. Comparative evaluation of the oral tactile function by means of teeth or implant-supported rostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2(2):75–80. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020205.x.
Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Role of periodontal ligament receptors in the tactile function of teeth: a review. J Periodontal Res 1994;29(3):153–167. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1994.tb01208.x.
Steenberghe D. The structure and function of periodontal innervation. A review of the literature. J Periodontal Res 1979;14(3):185–203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1979.tb00223.x.
Batista M, Bonachela W, Soares J. Progressive recovery of osseoperception as a function of the combination of implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(6):565–569. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01529.x.
Klineberg I, Murray G. Osseoperception: sensory function and proprioception. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:120–129. DOI: 10.1177/08959374990130010101.
Jacobs R, Wu CH, Goossens K, et al. Perceptual changes in the anterior maxilla after placement of endosseous implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3(3):148–155. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00135.x.
Luraschi J, Schimmel M, Bernard JP, et al. Mechanosensation and maximum bite force in edentulous patients rehabilitated with bimaxillary implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(5):577–583. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02283.x.
Lang BR. Occlusion for the edentulous patient. In: Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Carlsson GE, eds. Boucher's Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients. St Louis: Mosby; 1997. pp. 262–278.
Mcnamara DC. Occlusal adjustment for a physiologically balanced occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38(3):284–293. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(77)90305-5.
Mericske-Stern R. Overdentures with roots or implants for elderly patients: a comparison. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72(5):543–550. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90129-5.
Kazemi M, Geramipanah F, Negahdari R, et al. Active tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants versus natural dentition: a split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(6):947–955. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12053.
Enkling N, Nicolay C, Bayer S, et al. Investigating interocclusal perception in tactile teeth sensibility using symmetric and asymmetric analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(6):683–690. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0348-3.
Abarca M, Van Steenberghe D, Malevez C, et al. The neurophysiology of osseointegrated oral implants. A clinically underestimated aspect. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(3):161–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01556.x.