The Influence of Customized Mouthguards on the Muscular Activity of the Masticatory Muscles at Maximum Bite and Motor Performance During Static and Dynamic Exercises
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 21, 2025

Mimicking and Measuring Occlusal Erosive Tooth Wear with the "Rub&Roll" and Non-contact Profilometry
Published on: February 2, 2018
Johannes Lässing1, Christoph Pökel2, Lennart Lingener3
1Institute of Sports Medicine and Prevention, University of Leipzig, Marschnerstr. 29, 04109, Leipzig, Germany. johannes.laessing@uni-leipzig.de.
Background:
Some studies have suggested that a mouthguard is a performance-enhancing device due to a remote voluntary contraction. The extent to which a mouthguard can induce this phenomenon, e.g., by potentially increasing biting, has not been clarified. This study's aim was to investigate the muscular activity of the maxillary and peripheral musculature and motor performance during a rest and exercise test.
Methods:
Our study comprised 12 active, male, professional young handball players (age 18.83 ± 0.39 years). Their performance, electromyographic (EMG) muscle activity (Σ), and lateral deviation (Δ) of the masticatory and peripheral musculature were measured during rest in a maximum bite force measurement, one-legged stand, a kettlebell swing exercise and a jump test while wearing a customized mouthguard (CMG) or not wearing one (Co).
Results:
Maximum bite force measurements did not differ significantly in their mean values of muscle activity (Σ) for the masseter and temporalis muscles (Co 647.6 ± 212.8 µV vs. CMG 724.3 ± 257.1 µV p = 0.08) (Co 457.2 ± 135.5 µV vs. CMG 426.6 ± 169.3 µV p = 0.38) with versus without CMG. We found no differences in the mean activation values during a one-legged stand, the kettlebell swing, and jump test (Σ) in any of the muscles tested. Lateral deviations (Δ) wearing a CMG were significantly less in the erector spinae during the kettlebell swing (Co 5.33 ± 3.4 µV vs. CMG 2.53 ± 1.8 µV p = 0.01) and countermovement jump (Co 37.90 ± 30.6 µV vs. CMG 17.83 ± 22.3 µV p = 0.03) compared to the performance without a CMG. Jump height, rotation moment, and balance were unchanged with versus without CMG.
Conclusion:
Our results at rest and during specific motor stress show no differences with or without a CMG. The improved peripheral muscular balance while wearing a CMG indicates improved muscular stabilization.
More Related Videos
07:26Assessing Pupil-linked Changes in Locus Coeruleus-mediated Arousal Elicited by Trigeminal Stimulation
Published on: November 26, 2019
06:46In Vivo Functional Assessment of Rat Masseter Muscle Following Surgical Creation of a Volumetric Muscle Loss (VML) Injury
Published on: November 15, 2024