Pain‐free bite force in a healthy population: Within‐session test–retest reliability in different sitting positions

• DOI: 10.1111/joor.13720
• Publication Date: 2024-04-30T05:34:04Z
• Authors: Andrew Mitchell; Luke Heales; Julia Treleaven; Brendan Too; Ryan Tyrrell; Alana Dinsdale
• Keywords: Male; Adult; Sitting Position; Reproducibility of Results; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Middle Aged; Healthy Volunteers; Bite Force; Young Adult; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Humans; Female

AbstractBackgroundPain‐free bite force (PFBF) is a promising measure to evaluate bite function in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), yet the reliability of the measure is unknown.ObjectivesEstablish the (1) within‐session test–retest reliability of PFBF in a healthy population for a single and mean of three trials in supported and unsupported sitting; (2) standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC).MethodsThirty healthy participants (n = 15 female, mean [SD] age = 34.4 [11.0] years) completed two sessions (30–60 min apart) comprising three PFBF trials on each side, in both supported and unsupported sitting, to provide data for 60 (30 participants × two sides) test–retest assessments. Test–retest reliability for the first trial and mean of three trials in each position were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), before calculating the corresponding SEM and MDC for males (M) and females (F) respectively.ResultsWithin‐session reliability was considered excellent for a single trial in supported sitting (ICC = 0.85; SEM M/F = 99/84 N; MDC M/F = 275/232 N) and unsupported sitting (ICC = 0.91; SEM M/F = 72/59 N, MDC M/F = 200/163 N), and for a mean of three trials in supported sitting (ICC = 0.89; SEM M/F = 66/79 N, MDC M/F = 182/220 N) and unsupported sitting (ICC = 0.92; SEM M/F = 64/59 N, MDC M/F = 177/164 N).ConclusionSingle and a mean of three trials in supported and unsupported sitting appear reliable methods to measure PFBF in a healthy population. Testing PFBF using a mean of three trials in unsupported sitting appears superior over other methods though due to higher test–retest reliability, and lower SEM and MDC. Future studies should examine the reliability of PFBF in TMD populations.