Article

Efficacy of Elastodontic Devices in Temporomandibular

Disorder Reduction Assessed by Computer Aid Evaluation
Eleonora Ortu 1, Sara Di Nicolantonio 1,*, Samuele Cova 2, Davide Pietropaoli 1, Lucia De Simone 1
and Annalisa Monaco 1

1 MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy;
eleonora.ortu@univaq.it (E.O.); davide.pietropaoli@univaq.it (D.P.); lucia.desimone@graduate.univaq.it (L.D.S.);
annalisa.monaco@univaq.it (A.M.)
2 DDS, Freelance, Trento, Via Tiberio Claudio, 18, 38023 Cles, Italy; covasamuele@hotmail.com

* Correspondence: saradinicolantonio@libero.it

Abstract: Background: The main objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two
different devices, the Eptamed elastodontic device and a common bite sold in pharmacies, by
assessing a computer aid evaluation of patients’ surface electromyography (sEMG) and
kinesiography activity of four pairs of masticatory and postural muscles (anterior temporalis,
digastricus, masseters and sternocleidomastoids muscles) before and after 6 months of treatment.
Materials and Methods: Twelve adult patients with temporomandibular disorders and in need of
orthodontic treatment were enrolled in the study and divided into cases and controls. Cases
underwent orthodontic treatment with the Eptamed elastodontic device, while controls were
treated with a bite sold in pharmacies. Both groups underwent electromyographic and
kinesiographic examinations before and after 6 months from the start of treatment. Results: The
Eptamed device was found to guarantee an improvement in the electrical activity of the muscles
examined. The subjects in the control group, on the other hand, had a general worsening of electrical
activity after wearing a splint purchased in a pharmacy. As for the kinesiographic examination,
there was no significant improvement in both groups. Conclusions: the use of the Eptamed device
Citation: Ortu, E.; Di Nicolantonio, S.; in subjects with TMD ensured a greater relaxation of the chewing muscles than a standard bite,
Cova, S.; Pietropaoli, D.; De Simone, L.; effectively reducing the risk of worsening the symptomatology of temporomandibular disorders.
Annalisa, M. Efficacy of Elastodontic
Devices in Temporomandibular Keywords: elastodontic device; bite standard; EMG; KNG; TMD(s)
Disorder Reduction Assessed by
Computer Aid Evaluation. Appl. Sci.
2024, 14, 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app14041651 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Bruno Chrcanovic Temporomandibular disorder(s) (TMDs) is a term involving dysfunction and pain of
Received: 27 November 2023
the masticatory muscles, temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and surrounding tissues. It is
Revised: 12 February 2024
a significant public health problem and represents the most common cause of nondental
Accepted: 15 February 2024 orofacial pain [1,2]. In the TMD sufferers, during palpation of the TMJ, in addition to
Published: 18 February 2024 hyperalgesia (usually detected by applying pressure at the level of the masticatory
muscles or at the level of the TMJ), noises or clicks in the opening, closing or lateral
movements of the jaw are also present. Actually, the chronic pain condition with which
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
such individuals are forced to live can also have repercussions at the level of the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
psychological and social component of the patients [3]. To date, in fact, TMDs are
This article is an open access article considered bio-psycho-social disorders, in which the genesis and representation of
distributed under the terms and symptoms are related to the interaction between objective biological aspects and the more
conditions of the Creative Commons complex aspects of the individual’s psychological sphere and social interaction [4]. This
Attribution (CC BY) license is so much so that a recent systematic review of the literature [5] considered TMDs one of
(https://creativecommons.org/license the factors that, more than all other oral conditions, can compromise the quality of life
s/by/4.0/). related to oral health (OHRQoL), so diagnosis and proper treatment is necessary to relieve
pain and improve quality of life. TMD can occur at any age; in particular, 13% of subjects

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041651 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 2 of 10

with temporomandibular disorders are elderly, from 13 to 30% are adults and 22% are
teenagers [6].
Nowadays, the etiology of TMD remains a subject of great controversy and is
generally viewed as multifactorial. The American Association of Oro-facial Pain
considered orthodontic treatments managed in the absence of good neuromuscular
balance to be among the major causes of temporomandibular disorders (in addition to
microtrauma, macrotrauma and anatomical, hormonal and genetic factors) [7]. In general,
the aim of an orthodontic treatment is to achieve functional and esthetic occlusion by
using fixed or removable appliances of different types. In this way, in addition to changing
the positioning of the dental elements and skeletal structures, the craniofacial structures
can be oriented toward a correct direction of growth [8]. But, an additional goal of proper
orthodontic treatment should be to achieve neuromuscular balance. The lack of
neuromuscular balance after orthodontics, in fact, can induce the development of
temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) [9].
To date, an increasing number of adults require orthodontic treatment; however,
temporomandibular disorders are more common at this age. In fact, according to
LeResche [10], pain associated with temporomandibular disorders occurs in 10% of the
population over the age of 18 and is a condition that prevails in adolescents and middle-
aged adults, while it is less common in children and elderly people. For this reason,
orthodontic treatment could be risky, causing a worsening of symptoms in individuals
with TMD or inducing the development of temporomandibular disorders in previously
healthy subjects. The application of excessive orthodontic forces can cause occlusal trauma
that can affect not only the TMJ but also periodontal tissues. In fact, according to studies
by Pola et al., the presence of occlusal trauma is a risk factor for the progression of
periodontal disease [11]. In addition, in subjects who already have periodontitis, it can
exacerbate the inflammatory process of the dental support tissues with increased levels of
RANKL in the GCF (gingival crevicular fluid) and tissue and bone damage [12]. It is,
therefore, necessary during treatment to achieve tooth contacts that are stable and
atraumatic, avoiding periodontal and joint repercussions. Therefore, a careful clinical
examination with palpation of the TMJ and masticatory muscles during orthodontic
treatment would be appropriate. Electromyographic and kinesiographic examination can
be of fundamental help in this regard. They are used as diagnostic tools in the context of
temporomandibular disorders [13]. EMG evaluations, in fact, are considered a promising
method for estimating muscle activity and function in individuals with TMD and may be
of great resource in assessing the response to possible therapy, such as also orthodontic
therapy [14]. In fact, in the event that orthodontic treatment causes a condition of tension
at the level of the oral and peri-oral musculature, elevated electromyographic values and
altered mandibular kinematics are recorded [15]. This allows the clinician to change the
method of treatment or even discontinue it for a more muscular wellness condition,
especially if the patient in question already has temporomandibular disorders.
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the orthodontic field in the use of
elastodontic devices. These are preformed silicone devices that can be used in both
children and adults. Thanks to their structure, such devices are very easy to use, safe and
comfortable for the patient. In fact, they allow stability to be achieved in the oral cavity
with both esthetic and functional results. The activation of the device occurs with only
chewing exercises on the part of the patient without the need for the orthodontist to resort
to necessarily invasive orthodontic forces. On the other hand, there is an increasing
demand for oral bites sold in pharmacies, which, since they do not require the
collaboration of the orthodontist, are cost-effective. Many doubts arise, however, about
their effectiveness at the level of oral health.
The aim of the study was to verify the clinical validity of two different gnatologic
devices, the Eptamed elastodontic device and a common bite sold in pharmacies, by
comparing the EMG and kinesiography activity of four pairs of masticatory and postural
muscles (anterior temporalis, digastricus, masseters and sternocleidomastoids muscles)
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 3 of 10

before and after 6 months of orthodontic treatment in adults patients with TMD. The
clinical significance of that study would be to ensure that in the future, orthodontic
treatments can be offered to patients with TMD with effective devices that do not worsen
the health of the temporomandibular joint, which is already compromised, but rather
provide benefits and muscle and joint relaxation.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was carried out in accordance with the fundamental principles of the
Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Internal Review Board of the University
of L’Aquila (Number 16137/2016). A total of 24 patients were enrolled in the study, and
written informed consent was obtained from each subject. These subjects reported signs
and symptoms of myofascial TMD according to group 1a of the Axis I of the Research
Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) [16] and orthodontic treatment necessity for
occlusal discrepancies according to the index of orthodontic treatment needs (IOTN)
described by Brook and Shaw [17]. For each patient, a careful anamnesis and
orthopanoramic exam were performed, intraoral and extraoral photos were taken and
alginate impressions of the dental arches were made; finally, the dental technician was
asked to cast the plaster models. The 24 patients were then included or excluded from the
study according to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The inclusion criteria were as follows:
(1) Age between 18 and 50 years;
(2) TMD diagnosis according to Axis I;
(3) Index of orthodontic treatment needs (IOTN) ≤ 3;
(4) Chronic orofacial pain (>3 months);
(5) Impairment sEMG activity after TENS according to Konchak et al. [18];
(6) Complete permanent dentition.
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
(1) Systemic diseases;
(2) History of local or general trauma;
(3) Neurological or psychiatric disorders;
(4) Pacemaker wearer;
(5) Episodes of epileptic seizures;
(6) Pregnancy;
(7) Assumed use of FANS, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, SSRIs or opiates.
Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 patients were eventually enrolled in
the study, and the subjects were randomly divided into test and control groups through
computer-generated software (https://www.sealedenvelope.com/ accessed on 12 March
2023). The control group comprised 6 patients (3 males, 3 females; aged less than 50 years)
treated with a preformed bite, which is normally sold in pharmacies. The test group
comprised 6 patients (3 males, 3 females; less than 50 years) treated with an Eptamed
elastodontic device (EQ. UNIVERSAL). The two devices were very similar to each other
and individually modified according to the patientsʹ individual arches.

2.1. Instrumentation
Each patient in the study group received an EQ. UNIVERSAL device. This device is
similar to a mouth guard, embracing both jaws, so it covers all dental elements up to the
last molar in the arch. These devices are pre-formed removable silicone devices, so there
are different sizes. To choose the device that best fits the size and shape of the dental arch,
the distance between the palatal cusps of the first premolars is measured on the previously
made plaster models. Patients were given the necessary instructions: the study group had
to wear the device at night and only for 1 h and a half per day. During the day, patients
had to perform chewing exercises to activate the device. The equilibrator is a type of
orthodontic device that stimulates growth and, through the input of muscle movements,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 4 of 10

triggers tissue development towards proper chewing function. Biting this elastomeric
device balances tension at the spheno-basilar synchondrosis, based on osteopathic
medicine and philosophy [19]. Patients in the control group were given a preformed, self-
molding resin splint normally available for purchase at low-cost pharmacies, matching
the dental casts of both patients’ arches obtained at the beginning of the study. As well as
the case group, the control group was also asked to wear the device overnight and for an
hour and a half a day with the same exercises to be performed.
All examined patients underwent electromyographic examination and
kinesiographic examination before the start of orthodontic treatment (T0) and after 6
months (T1); moreover, orthodontic examinations were performed for each patient
periodically during the trial and thereafter. Electromyographic activity was recorded
using an eight-channel Myotronics K7 Evaluation System (Seattle, WA, USA) and single-
use electrodes (Duotrode, Ag-agcl surface bipolar electrodes, 20 mm center-interaxis,
Myotronics-Noromed, Inc., Tukwila WA, USA). Electrodes were positioned on the left
masseter (LMM), right masseter (RMM), left anterior temporal (LTA), right anterior
temporal (LTA, RTA) [20], left digastric muscle (LDA), right digastric muscles (RDA) and
the left and right sternocleidomastoid muscles (LSC, RSC) [21]. The sEMG and muscle
activity records were expressed as the mean root square (RMS) of amplitude, expressed
in µV and digitized with the K7 clinical software package [2]. In this study, the authors
evaluated scan 9 with muscle tone being evaluated with eyes closed and then with eyes
open. This scan is very important because it highlights the muscle tone in rest position
with closed eyes and after with opened eyes. In addition to scan 9, a kinesiographer was
used to assess the kinematics of the mandibular in frontal, sagittal and lateral vision
(K7/CMS®; Myotronics-Noromed, Inc., Tukwila, WA, USA) with an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
An array containing 8 magnetic sensors tracked the motion of a 0.1 oz magnet (CMS
Magnet; Myotronics-Noromed, Inc., Tukwila, WA, USA) that was attached to the labial
gingiva beneath the mandibular incisor teeth with an adhesive gel. The kinesiographic
examination was carried out by recording scan 1. It evaluates the degree of maximal
voluntary mandibular opening, whereby the patient is asked to open and close his mouth
to the maximum with eyes open. The degree of opening is expressed in millimeters. The
data obtained from the electromyographic and kinesiographic examination were digitized
and analyzed by means of software installed in a computer (K7 Program, Myotronics-
Noromed, Inc., Tukwila, WA, USA).

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Electromyography microvolt values were recorded in an electronic spreadsheet.
Subsequently, surface electromyography (sEMG) raw values from each muscle
underwent a dual transformation through both averaging and summation, resulting in
the creation of two new variables. Following this initial processing, each variable
underwent a z-score transformation, calculated as the difference between the observed
value and the mean of the sample, divided by the standard deviation of the sample. This
normalization procedure was employed for the comparative evaluation of the data,
effectively mitigating scale-related biases that may have existed between the averaged and
summed values. To ascertain the statistical significance of the observed differences among
groups, the study employed a non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This statistical
approach was used for its robustness in handling small sample sizes and non-normally
distributed data. The predefined threshold for statistical significance was established at p
< 0.05 for discerning meaningful distinctions in electromyographic activity between the
groups under scrutiny.

3. Results
Baseline characteristics of the enrolled individuals showed no statistical difference in
terms of age and sex, and all had a diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders according
to Axis I of the RDC/TMD. This allows the two groups to be considered comparable.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 5 of 10

The statistical analysis showed that at 6 months in closed-eye condition, there was an
improvement in the electromyographic activity of all examined muscles. In particular,
anterior temporalis, masseters, anterior digastricus and sternocleidomastoid muscles
showed low values of microVolts in the Eptamed group compared with patients wearing
standard bite. This finding is consistent on both sides (Figure 1). On the other hand in
open-eye condition, in the Eptamed group compared with patients wearing standard bite,
there was a statistically significant improvement in the electromyographic activity of only
few muscles (p < 0.05): the left and right temporalis (LTA_OA, p = 0.0022; RTA_OA, p =
0.0022), the right and left digastric muscles (LDA_OA, p = 0.014; RDA_OA, p= 0.0095) and
the left sternocleidomastoid (LTP_OA, p = 0.005) showed low values of microVolts. There
was no significant improvement in masseter muscles and the right sternocleidomastoid
muscle (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Non−parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test performed following electromyographic

examination in the open and closed eye condition of all muscles examined in the Eptamed group
(in yellow) and the standard bite group (in blue) after 6 months of treatment.

Figure 2 describes the degree of maximum mouth opening, assessed by

kinesiographic examination (scan 1) before the start of treatment (T0) and after 6 months
of orthodontic treatment (T1) in the two groups. At T0, there was no statistically significant
difference in the degree of maximum mouth opening in the two groups. After 6 months
from the start of orthodontic treatment, in both Eptamed-treated and standard bite-treated
patients, there was no change in the degree of mouth opening compared with T0. So, there
is no statistically significant difference in the degree of opening between T0 and T1 and
between the two groups.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 6 of 10

Figure 2. Non−parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test performed following kinesiographic

examinations in the condition of maximum mouth opening (scan 1) in the two groups.

Table 1 shows the z-score transformation of each variable. A negative value indicates
a worsening of the muscle relaxation state, while a positive value indicates an
improvement after 6 months of treatment. Note the lower tension and, thus, greater
muscle relaxation in patients wearing Eptamed compared with patients wearing standard
bite. In particular, in the eyes-closed condition, patients with Eptamed manifest a general
improvement in all muscles examined; upon the opening of the eye (EO), the greatest
relaxation is found at the level of the temporalis muscles on both sides, while modest
improvements are seen in all other muscles examined. No change is seen in the degree of
mouth opening. In the standard bite group, on the other hand, the state of tension worsens
upon both eye opening and closing, with a markedly at eye opening.

Table 1. z−score transformation of each variable calculated as the difference between the observed
value and the mean of the sample, divided by the standard deviation of the sample, described with
a heatmap
Openin
Id Device Lta Lmm Rmm Rta Ltp Lda Rda Rtp Lta_eo Lmm_eo Rmm_eo Rta_eo Ltp_eo Lda_eo Rda_eo Rtp_eo
g
1 BITE −1.21 −1.07 −1.75 −0.89 −0.40 −0.54 −0.95 −0.42 −0.91 −4.46 −4.85 −2.44 −0.53 −2.35 −3.71 −0.86 0.00
2 BITE −1.17 −4.00 −3.30 −1.06 −0.46 −2.04 −1.46 −0.13 −1.23 −4.50 −3.30 −1.06 −0.44 −4.11 −3.09 −0.27 0.00
3 BITE −0.10 −1.50 −0.40 0.11 −2.09 −0.85 −0.74 −0.69 0.14 0.11 −0.29 0.18 −1.54 −1.17 −1.64 −0.16 0.00
4 BITE −1.42 −1.36 −2.08 −0.10 −0.79 −0.25 −0.43 0.00 −1.40 −5.00 −4.83 −2.00 −0.56 −1.33 −2.33 −0.67 −0.07
5 BITE −0.67 −1.38 −1.08 −0.76 −1.23 −0.80 −0.39 −0.32 −0.33 −4.91 −3.55 −1.11 −0.71 −2.26 −1.92 −0.15 −0.07
6 BITE −0.41 −3.00 −1.91 −0.94 −1.50 −0.97 −1.22 −0.09 −0.83 −0.15 −0.43 −0.11 −1.36 −3.50 −1.83 −0.82 0.00
1 EQ. U. 0.69 0.06 0.55 0.71 0.74 0.25 0.27 0.64 0.78 0.38 0.62 0.80 0.67 −0.33 −0.33 −0.28 −0.21
2 EQ. U. 0.14 −0.10 −0.08 0.11 0.26 −0.21 −0.27 0.00 0.34 −0.64 −0.47 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.03 −0.24 −0.17
3 EQ. U. 0.44 0.19 0.47 0.74 0.68 0.46 0.52 0.24 0.68 0.04 −0.07 0.64 0.83 −0.67 −0.56 −0.39 0.00
4 EQ. U. 0.66 0.15 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.42 0.53 0.80 0.70 0.45 0.24 0.58 0.67 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.00
5 EQ. U. 0.40 0.17 0.46 0.59 0.53 0.51 0.29 0.33 0.63 0.18 0.41 0.50 0.61 0.22 0.12 0.28 0.00
6 EQ. U. 0.55 0.27 0.48 0.52 0.25 0.32 0.30 0.44 0.49 0.19 0.20 0.46 0.44 0.29 0.17 0.05 −0.38
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 7 of 10

4. Discussion
From the data obtained, it can be concluded that
• The elastodontic device (EQ UNIVERSAL, Eptamed srl Via Ravennate, 979, 47522
Cesena (FC) ITALY) is capable of causing, in patients with temporomandibular
disorders, a reduction in muscle tone at rest (scan 9) of the examined muscles
(masseter, anterior temporal, digastric and sternocleidomastoid muscles) compared
to a standard bite sold in pharmacies that, instead, causes an increase in muscle
tension.
• The reduction of electromyographic activity with Eptamed is greater in the closed-
eye condition than in the open-eye condition when scan 9 is recorded.
• No statistically significant difference was assessed during the kinesiographic
examination at the maximum opening of the mouth in the comparison between the
two groups at T0 and T1.
• No improvement in the electrical activity of the muscles was observed after 6 months
of the use of the standard bite.
Following the results obtained from the above-mentioned study, the Eptamed device
can be considered as a device to be administered to patients with TMD and orofacial pain
before they start orthodontic therapy, as it is able to relax the stomatognathic muscles.
These results are in line with the findings of Ortu et al. in which, comparing the
electromyographic and kinesiographic examination of two elastodontic devices, it was
seen that both ensured muscle relaxation, reducing the risk of TMD(s) development in
treated subjects [22].
A few articles in the literature over the years called orthodontic treatment into
question as a possible cause of TMD. Kononen et al. examined 166 children after
orthodontic treatment, and 52% of them manifested signs and symptoms of TMDs [23].
Hirata et al. had shown that the development of dysfunction occurred equally in both
orthodontically treated and untreated subjects, this means that orthodontic treatment
does not always lead to the achievement of a muscular balance [24]. Also, Ricketts stated
that clinical symptoms of joint derangement were noted as occlusions were changed, and
he suggested that the various orthodontic forces provided during therapy may predispose
patients to temporomandibular joint problems [25]. But, the most emblematic case is a
1987 Brimm vs. Malloy Michigan court case [26] in which an orthodontist was ordered to
recover damages against a patient who had undergone mismanaged orthodontic
treatment that caused her joint problems. Stohler and Zarb [27] state that orthodontic
treatment of patients with TMD is considered radical and maximizes the risk of iatrogenic
complications; that is, there is a significant risk of failure.
In this regard, guidelines based on the latest scientific evidence were drawn up, and
an orthodontist must consider them in clinical practice [28]. In a nutshell, it is required of
dentists to conduct a thorough examination and/or screening of TMD (presence of clicks,
joint pain or mandibular deviations [29]) during orthodontic consultation and before
starting orthodontic treatment both in patients who already have temporomandibular
disorders and in healthy patients. However, it is necessary to stop any treatment if
symptoms worsen (in patients diagnosed with TMD) or arise (in patients without TMD
before treatment). In this way, the orthodontist can avoid both the worsening and the
occurrence of TMD due to poorly managed orthodontic treatment.
In this circumstance, electromyographic and kinesiographic examination are
essential tools that help the clinician assess whether a neuromuscular balance can be
achieved following orthodontic treatment that does not compromise the health of the
temporomandibular joint. According to Castroflorio et al., the electromyographic
examination is considered an easily reproducible examination, so much so that the
instrumentation used and a well-controlled sEMG protocol allow it to be used for
longitudinal studies [30]. The presence of generalized muscle relaxation in all eight
muscles analyzed by electromyographic examination is an indication of the effectiveness
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 8 of 10

of the orthodontic treatment itself [22]. For this reason, the achievement of low muscle
activity at rest must be a desirable outcome during treatment.
Kecik et al. [31] compared the dental and muscular changes that patients manifested
following treatment of maxillary expansion with the quad-helix. In this case, in addition
to clinical and cephalometric examinations, the need to contemplate electromyographic
evaluations in the diagnostic setting was affirmed. The sEMG allowed appropriate
diagnosis and prognosis to be formulated and also to monitor the functional impact of
orthodontic therapies at various stages of treatment. In this way, the clinician can evaluate
whether or not the orthodontic device is suitable in the presence of TMDs, thus avoiding
worsening pain and dysfunction at the joint level.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate electromyographic and
kinesiographic activity in subjects with TMD by comparing two different orthodontic
devices, with the aim of assessing any muscle tension that these devices may cause. The
use of the Eptamed device resulted in the achievement of greater muscle relaxation and a
reduction in most of the electromyographic values considered. This did not occur in TMD
patients wearing a bite sold in pharmacies. The improvement in electromyographic values
in the case group is manifested mostly in the eyes-closed condition compared to the eyes-
open condition. The change in electromyographic values according to visual input is in
line with accumulated evidence indicating that TMD subjects show a dysregulation of the
systems that control the response of the autonomic and somatomotor systems to sensory
stimuli [32]. In a study by Monaco et al. [33], subjects with TMD in the open-eye condition
had higher electromyographic values than healthy subjects in the same condition. These
values increased by far even after standard spectacle wrapping. The lower improvement
in values in the open-eye condition that occurred in our study, therefore, may be an
intrinsic factor in the pathophysiology of temporomandibular disorders. TMDs are, in
fact, classified as CSS and, as such, manifest a state of hyperexcitation and altered response
to peripheral sensory stimuli, including those coming from the visual system [34].
However, the subjects who wore Eptamed at the opening of the eyes had
electromyographic values worse than the closed eyes condition but better than the control
group. This may suggest that elastodontic devices may, in this case, positively influence
the responses of TMD patients to visual sensory inputs. On the other hand, the use of oral
bites in orthodontic treatment in patients with TMD is controversial; several studies
evaluated muscle electromyographic activity following the use of such devices, and the
results are so variable that no firm conclusion can be made [35,36]. In fact, oral bites sold
in pharmacies, by not requiring the cooperation of the dentist, lead the patient to a self-
diagnosis that can be harmful. In fact, as was seen in this study, such devices may even
worsen the patient’s clinical situation, so they need careful evaluation and use.
It is important to note that this is a pilot study, for which it inevitably has some
limitations: it must be considered that patients were evaluated only for 6 months of
orthodontic treatment; it would be advisable to extend the follow-up to at least 1 year. In
addition, few people were selected, so the sample is too small. Future studies should,
therefore, overcome these limitations by increasing the sample size and observation time of
the sample.

5. Conclusions
Our pilot study suggests that the Eptamed device could be a viable orthodontic
device for use in individuals with TMD as it provides a reduction in muscle tension, which
individuals with TMD can present, compared to a standard bite. However, due to the
limited number of patients examined, further research will be needed in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization E.O., S.C. and A.M.; methodology D.P. and S.C.;
validation A.M.; writing—original draft preparation S.D.N. and E.O.; writing—review and editing
S.D.N., L.D.S. and E.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 9 of 10

Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was carried out in accordance with the
fundamental principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Internal Review
Board of the University of L’Aquila (Number 16137/2016).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: All the experimental data to support the findings of this study are
available by contacting the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Ohrbach, R.; Bair, E.; Fillingim, R.B.; Gonzalez, Y.; Gordon, S.M.; Lim, P.F.; Ribeiro-Dasilva, M.; Diatchenko, L.; Dubner, R.;
Greenspan, J.D.; et al. Clinical orofacial characteristics associated with risk of first-onset TMD: The OPPERA prospective cohort
study. J Pain. 2013, 14 (Suppl. S12), T33–T50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.07.018.
2. Sergio Paduano, M.D.; Rosaria Bucci, D.D.; Roberto Rongo, D.D.; Silva, R.; Michelotti, A. Prevalence of temporomandibular
disorders and oral parafunctions in adolescents from public schools in Southern Italy. CRANIO® 2018, 38, 370–375.
3. Dworkin, S.F.; Von Korff, M.R.; LeResche, L. Multiple pains and psychiatric disturbance: An epidemiologic investigation. Arch.
Gen. Psychiat. 1990, 47, 239–244.
4. Manfredini, D.; Ahlberg, J.; Winocur, E.; Guarda-Nardini, L.; Lobbezoo, F. Correlation of RDC/TMD axis I diagnoses and axis
II pain-related disability. A multicenter study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2011, 15, 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0444-4.
5. Reis, P.H.F.; Laxe, L.A.C.; Lacerda-Santos, R.; Münchow, E.A. Distribution of anxiety and depression among different subtypes
of temporomandibular disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2022, 49, 754–767.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13331.
6. Yap, A.U.; Chen, C.; Wong, H.C.; Yow, M.; Tan, E. Temporomandibular disorders in prospective orthodontic patients. Angle
Orthod. 2021, 91, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.2319/010720-863.1.
7. deLeeuw, R.; Klasser, G. (Eds.) Differential Diagnosis and Management of TMDs. Orofacial Pain: Guidelines, Assessment, Diagnosis,
and Management, 6th ed.; Quintessence Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 144–207.
8. Andrews, L.F. Straightwire: The Concept and Appliance; LA Wells: San Diego, CA, USA, 1989.
9. Masci, C.; Ciarrocchi, I.; Spadaro, A.; Necozione, S.; Marci, M.C.; Monaco, A. Does orthodontic treatment provide a real
functional improvement? A case control study. BMC Oral Health 2013, 13, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-13-57.
10. LeResche, L. Epidemiology of Temporomandibular disorders: Implication for investigation of etiologic factors. Crit. Rev. Oral
Biol. Med. 1997, 8, 291–305.
11. Popa, C.; Solomon, S.M.; Rudnic, I.; Mârţu, I.; Luchian, I.; Mârţu, M.A.; Sava, N.; Mârţu, S. Evaluation of oclusal trauma as a
risk factor in the ethiology of chronic periodontitis. Int. J. Med. Dent. 2018, 8, 83.
12. Popa, C.G.; Luchian, I.; Ioanid, N.; Goriuc, A.; Martu, I.; Bosinceanu, D.; Martu, M.A.; Tirca, T.; Martu, S. ELISA Evaluation of
RANKL Levels in Gingival Fluid in Patients with Periodontitis and Occlusal Trauma. Rev. Chim. 2018, 69, 1578–1580.
13. Al-Saleh, M.A.; Flores-Mir, C.; Thie, N.M. Thie,Electromyography in diagnosing temporomandibular disorders. J. Am. Dent.
Assoc. 2012, 143, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0177.
14. Santana-Mora, U.; López-Ratón, M.; Mora, M.J.; Cadarso-Suárez, C.; López-Cedrún, J.; Santana-Penín, U. Surface raw
electromyography has a moderate discriminatory capacity for differentiating between healthy individuals and those with TMD:
A diagnostic study. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2014, 24, 332–340.
15. Giannini, L.; Maspero, C.; Batia, C.; Galbiati, G. Valutazione elettromiografica ed elettrognatografica del trattamento
ortodontico-chirurgico. Mondo Ortod. 2011, 36, 12–28.
16. Dworkin, S.F.; Le Resche, L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and
specifications, critique. J. Craniomandib. Disord. 1992, 6, 302–355.
17. Brook, P.H.; Shaw, W.C. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur. J. Orthod. 1989, 11, 309–320.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999.
18. Konchak, P.A.; Thomas, N.R.; Lanigan, D.T.; Devon, R.M. Freeway space measurement using mandibular kinesiograph and
EMG before and after TENS. Angle Orthod. 1988, 58, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-
3219(1988)058<0343:FSMUMK>2.0.CO;2..
19. Ortu, E.; Pietropaoli, D.; Cova, S.; Marci, M.C.; Monaco, A. Efficacy of elastodontic devices in overjet and overbite reduction
assessed by computer-aid evaluation. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 269. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01628-7.
20. Castroflorio, T.; Farina, D.; Bottin, A.; Piancino, M.G.; Bracco, P.; Merletti, R. Surface EMG of jaw elevator muscles: Effect of
electrode location and inter-electrode distance. J. Oral Rehabil. 2005, 32, 411–417.
21. Castro, H.A.; Resende, L.A.; Berzin, F.; Konig, B. Electromyographic analysis of the superior belly of the omohyoid muscle and
anterior belly of the digastric muscle in tongue and head movements. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 1999, 9, 229–232.
22. Ortu, E.; Barrucci, G.; Aprile, G.; Guerrini, L.; Pietropaoli, D.; Monaco, A. Electromyographic evaluation during orthodontic
therapy: Comparison of two elastodontic devices. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2020, 34, 1935–1939. https://doi.org/10.23812/20-
141-L.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1651 10 of 10

23. Kononen, M.; Nystrom, M.; Kleemola-Kujola, E.; Kataja, M.; Evalahti, M.; Pekka, L.; Peck, L. Signs and symptoms of
craniomandibular disorders in a series of Finnish children. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1987, 45, 109–114.
24. Hirata, R.H.; Heft, M.W.; Hernandez, B.; King, G.J. Longitudinal study of signs of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in
orthodontically treated and nontreated groups. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1992, 101, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-
5406(92)70079-P.
25. Ricketts, R.M. Clinical implications of the temporomandibular joint. Am. J. Orthod. 1966, 52, 416–439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(66)90121-7.
26. Pollack, B. Cases of note: Michigan jury awards $850,000 in ortho case: A tempest in a teapot. J. Mich. Dent. Assoc. 1988, 70, 540–
542.
27. Stohler, C.S.; Zarb, G.A. On the management of temporomandibular disorders: A plea for a low-tech, high-prudence therapeutic
approach. J. Orofac. Pain 1999, 13, 255–261.
28. Sanjivan, K.; Donald, J.; Rinchuse, C.S.; Greene, L.; Johnston, E. Temporomandibular disorders and orthodontics: What have we
learned from 1992–2022? Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2022, 161, 769–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.12.011.
29. Machen, D.E. Legal aspects of orthodontic practice: Risk management concepts. Excellent diagnostic informed consent practice
and record keeping make a difference. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1990, 98, 381–382.
30. Castroflorio, T.; Titolo, C.; Deregibus, A.; Debernardi, C.; Bracco, P. The Orthodontic Treatment of TMD Patients: EMG Effects
of a Functional Appliance. CRANIO® 2007, 25, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2007.032.
31. Kecik, D.; Kocadereli, I.; Saatci, I. Evaluation of the treatment changes of functional posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.
Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2007, 131, 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.03.030.
32. Chen, H.; Nackley, A.; Miller, V.; Diatchenko, L.; Maixner, W. Multisystem dysregulation in painful temporomandibular
disorders. J. Pain 2013, 14, 983–996.
33. Monaco A.; Ortu E.; Giannoni M.; DʹAndrea P.; Cattaneo R.; Mummolo A.; Pietropaoli D. Standard Correction of Vision Worsens
EMG Activity of Pericranial Muscles in Chronic TMD Subjects. Pain Res Manag. 2020, 2020, 3932476.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3932476.
34. Kindler, L.L.; Bennett, R.M.; Jones, K.D. Central sensitivity syndromes: Mounting pathophysiologic evidence to link
fibromyalgia with other common chronic pain disorders. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2011, 12, 15–24.
35. Tartaglia, G.M.; Lodetti, G.; Paiva, G.; De Felicio, C.M.; Sforza, C. Surface electromyograpic assessment of patients with long
lasting temporomandibular joint disorders pain. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2011, 21, 659–664.
36. Adibi, S.S.; Ogbureke, E.I.; Minavi, B.B.; Ogbureke, K.U. Why use oral splints for temporomandibular disorders(TMDs)? Tex.
Dent. J. 2014, 131, 450–455.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury
to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.