A Comparison Study of Postural Control Measures Between Before and After Applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf (TBA-G) Using Balance Master System

Article information

J Korean Med. 2014;35(1):50-57

Publication date (electronic) : 2014 March 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.14005

Kyeong-Hee Doo, Ji-Hyun Lee, Dong-Hyuk Lee, Soo-Kyung Kim, Seung-Yeon Cho, Jung-Mi Park, Chang-Nam Ko, Hyung-Sup Bae, Seong-Uk Park

Department of Korean Internal Medicine, Stroke and Neurological Disorders Center, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University

Correspondence to: 박성욱(Seong-Uk Park) 서울특별시 강동구 동남로 892 강동경희대학교병원 중풍뇌질환센터 한방내과, Tel: +82-2-440-6217, Fax: +82-2-440-7171, E-mail: seonguk.kr@gmail.com

Received 2013 November 20; Revised 2014 February 18; Accepted 2014 February 18.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine whether Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf (TBA-G) can improve postural control ability of healthy adults.

Methods:

Twenty participants (10 male, 10 female) aged 20 to 39 years were involved. Postural control ability of all participants was assessed before and after applying TBA-G with Balance Master^® system. Modified clinical test sensory interaction on balance (mCTSIB), unilateral stance, weight bearing and rhythmic weight shift were used to evaluate postural control ability.

Results:

After applying TBA-G, mCTSIB on a firm plate with eyes open increased from 0.2 to 0.23 (p<0.05) but directional control was improved in slow and moderate velocity of front/back rhythmic weight shift test (P<0.05). In two cases with postural imbalance, most of the postural control measures improved after applying TBA-G.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that TBA-G could improve balance control ability. A larger controlled trial is needed to determine more accurately the effect of TBA-G on balance control ability.

Keywords: Balance; Functional Cerebrospinal Therapy(FCST); Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G); Balance Master System

Fig. 1

Temporomandibular joint Balance Appliance for Golf (TBA-G)

Table 1

General characteristics of Subjects.

Table 2

Comparison of Mean Center of Gravity(COG) Sway Velocity between before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

Table 3

Comparison of Weight bearing rate before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

Table 4

Comparison of Directional control and On-axis velocity during the Rhythmic Weight Shift before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

Table 5

Comparison of Balance parameter before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf (TBA-G) in two cases.

References

1. Yin CS, Koh HG, Lee YJ, Chun SI, Lee YJ. Functional Cerebrospinal Therapy (FCST), a new physiologic therapeutics developed as meridian Yin-Yang balance approach. Korean Journal of Acupuncture 2005;22(4):164–74.

2. Yin CS, Lee YJ, Lee YJ. Temporomandibular joint yinyang balance treatment improves cervical spine alignment in pain patients, a medical imaging study. Korean Journal of Acupuncture 2007;24(4):37–45.

3. Sun SH, Park CW, Jung HJ, Ahn SH, Sohn IC, Lee YJ. A study on the effect of golf driver head speed and back muscular strength in TBA-G of FCST. J Korean Oriental Med 2013;34(1):80–8.

4. Yim KB, Lee HJ, Joo SJ, Lim SS, Chae JW, Park JY, et al. Postural control measures of golfers using balance master system. J Kor Sports Med 2006;24(2):152–7.

5. Tinetti ME, Williams TF, Mayewski R. Fall risk index for elderly patients based on number of chronic disabilities. Am J Med 1986;80:429–34.

6. Mathias S, Nayak ULS, Issacs B. Balance I elderly patients: the “Get-up and Go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986;67:387–9.

7. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy 1989;41:304–11.

8. Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol 1990;45(6):M192–7.

9. Murry MP, Seireg AA, Sepic SB. Normal postural stability and steadiness: quantitative assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57(4):510–6.

10. Wolfson L, Whipple R, Derby CA, Amerman P, Murphy T, Tobin JN, et al. A dynamic posturography study of balance in healthy elderly. Neurology 1992;42(11):2069–75.

11. Kim YH, Kim NK, Cha EJ, Kim HI, Seo JH, Shin YI, et al. Quantitative Assessment of Static and Dynamic Postural Sway Using COBETS in Patients with Balance Problem. J Korean Rehab Med 1997;21(1):45–54.

12. Dodd K, Hill K, Haas R, Luke C, Millard S. Retest reliability of dynamic balance during standing in older people after surgical treatment of hip fracture. Physiother Res Int 2003;8(2):93–100.

13. Li X, Hamdy R, Sandborn W, Chi D, Dyer A. Long-term effects of antidepressants on balance, equilibrium, and postural reflexes. Psychiatry Res 1996;63(2–3):191–6.

14. Murray K, Carroll S, Hill K. Relationship between change in balance and self-reported handicap after vestibular rehabilitation therapy. Physiother Res Int 2001;6(4):251–63.

15. Reimann BL, Guskiewicz KM. Effects of mild head injury on postural stability as measured through clinical balance testing. J Athl Train 2000;35(1):19–25.

16. Wang RY, Yen Lu, Lee CC, Lin PY, Wang MF, Yang YR. Effects of an ankle-foot orthosis on balance performance in patients with hemiparesis of different durations. Clin Rehabil 2005;19(1):37–44.

17. Wu SH, Huang HT, Lin CF, Chen MH. Effects of a program on symmetrical posture in patients with hemiplegia : a single subject design. Am J Occup Ther 1996;50(1):17–23.

18. Lee YJ. Good jaw, Beautiful jaw Seoul: Ppangbongtu; 2004. p. 5–6. p. 11–2.

19. Lee YJ. Systemic therapeutics using TMJ Seoul: Korea medical book; 2007. p. 473–539. p. 616–34.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

Temporomandibular joint Balance Appliance for Golf (TBA-G)

Table 1

General characteristics of Subjects.

	male (n=10)	female (n=10)
Age (yrs)	26.6±2.22	26.5±1.72
Height (cm)	173±3.68	161±3.97
Weight (kg)	66.62±8.22	51.35±4.81

Table 2

Comparison of Mean Center of Gravity(COG) Sway Velocity between before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

		Mean COG Sway Velocity(°/sec)
		Before(n=20)	After(n=20)	P-value
mCTSIB-firm^†	Eye open	0.2(0.17, 0.22)	0.23(0.2, 0.26)	0.03^*
mCTSIB-firm^†	Eye closed	0.25(0.2, 0.36)	0.27(0.21, 0.3)	0.59
mCTSIB-form^†	Eye open	0.57(0.5, 0.67)	0.5(0.5, 0.62)	0.1
mCTSIB-form^†	Eye closed	1.4(1.17, 1.52)	1.25(1.14, 1.42)	0.06
Unilateral stance-eye open^†	Right side	0.73(0.64, 0.82)	0.73(0.67, 0.82)	0.17
Unilateral stance-eye open^†	Left side	0.7(0.67, 0.8)	0.7(0.64, 0.79)	0.76
Unilateral stance-eye closed^†	Right side	1.48(1.33, 1.83)	1.52(1.25, 1.77)	0.1
Unilateral stance-eye closed^†	Left side	1.63(1.22, 1.92)	1.48(1.24, 1.69)	0.28

Values are median(lower quartile, upper quartile).

p<0.05 in Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test versus baseline.

^†

Lower points indicate better balance control.

mCTSIB: modified clinical test sensory interaction on balance.

Table 3

Comparison of Weight bearing rate before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

	Before(n=20)	After(n=20)	P-value
0^°^†	0.92(0.86, 0.96)	0.9(0.86, 0.96)	0.94
30°^†	0.92(0.85, 0.96)	0.92(0.89, 0.95)	0.83
60°^†	0.9(0.83, 0.95)	0.85(0.82, 0.95)	0.21
90°^†	0.9(0.82, 0.96)	0.9(0.82, 0.96)	0.71

Values are median(lower quartile, upper quartile).

^†

Ratio of weight bearing rate: closer to 1 indicates better balance.

Table 4

Comparison of Directional control and On-axis velocity during the Rhythmic Weight Shift before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf(TBA-G).

			Before(n=20)	After(n=20)	P-value
Front/Back	slow^†	Directional control(%)	80(75, 85)	83.5(79.25, 85.75)	0.03^*
	slow^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	2.15(1.9, 2.38)	2(1.9, 2.1)	0.05
	moderate^†	Directional control(%)	83(78.25, 86.75)	85.5(82, 88)	0.03^*
	moderate^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	3.1(2.9, 3.4)	3.1(3, 3.28)	0.86
	fast^†	Directional control(%)	85(78.25, 90)	85.5(72.5, 90)	0.2
	fast^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	5.85(5.45, 6.93)	6.25(4.93, 6.6)	0.42
Left/Right	slow^†	Directional control(%)	81(77.25, 84)	81.5(80.25, 83.75)	0.26
	slow^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	3.1(3, 3.45)	2.9(2.8, 3.18)	0.12
	moderate^†	Directional control(%)	85.5(83.25, 88)	87(84, 90)	0.36
	moderate^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	5(4.63, 5.28)	4.65(4.43, 5)	0.05
	fast^†	Directional control(%)	92(89.25, 93)	90(87.25, 93)	0.3
	fast^†	On-axis velocity(°/sec)	9.95(8.7, 11.05)	10.05(9.6, 10.6)	0.43

Values are median(lower quartile, upper quartile).

p<0.05 in Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test versus baseline.

^†

Higher points indicate better balance control.

Table 5

Comparison of Balance parameter before and after applying Temporomandibular Joint Balance Appliance-Golf (TBA-G) in two cases.

		Case 1		Case 2
		Before	After	Before	After
mCTSIB		0.6	0.5	0.7	0.6
Mean COG Sway Velocity(°/sec)^†
Unilateral stance-eye open		9	0	13	6
Left/Right difference(%)^†
Unilateral stance-eye closed		7	0	2	8
Left/Right difference(%)^†
Weight bearing	0°^†	0.89	1	0.85	0.96
	30°^†	0.72	0.92	0.82	1
	60°^†	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.96
	90°^†	0.82	0.85	0.85	1
RWS - Left/Right	On-axis velocity(°/sec)^§	5.93	6.2	6.47	5.63
RWS - Left/Right	Directional control(%)^§	88.33	89.67	84	86.67
RWS - Front/Back	On-axis velocity(°/sec)^§	3.37	4	3.67	3.4
RWS - Front/Back	Directional control(%)^§	68	81.33	62.67	75.33

^†

Lower points indicate better balance control.

^‡

Ratio of weight bearing rate: closer to 1 indicates better balance.

^§

Higher points indicate better balance control.

mCTSIB: modified clinical test sensory interaction on balance; Mean COG Sway Velocity: Mean Center of Gravity Sway Velocity; RWS: rhythmic weight shift.