Effects of sitting posture and bolus volume on activation of swallowing‐related muscles

Background The pharyngeal phase is a particularly important clinical factor related to swallowing dysfunctions. Head and neck posture, as well as bolus volume, are important factors affecting the pharyngeal stages of normal swallowing. Objective The aim of our study was to identify the effects of si...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of oral rehabilitation 2020-05, Vol.47 (5), p.577-583
Main Authors: Moon, Il‐Young, Yi, Chung‐Hwi, Park, Il‐Woo, Yong, Joon‐Hyoung
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bolus volume
Deglutition
Dentistry
Electromyography
Head and neck
infra‐hyoid
Muscles
Neck Muscles
Pharynx
Posture
Shoulder
Sitting Position
sitting posture
supra‐hyoid
surface electromyography
Swallowing
Thorax
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The pharyngeal phase is a particularly important clinical factor related to swallowing dysfunctions. Head and neck posture, as well as bolus volume, are important factors affecting the pharyngeal stages of normal swallowing. Objective The aim of our study was to identify the effects of sitting posture and bolus volume on the activation of swallowing‐related muscles. Materials and Methods Twenty‐four subjects participated in the study. The subjects were positioned in three sitting postures—slump sitting (SS), lumbo‐pelvic upright sitting (LUS), and thoracic upright sitting (TUS). While sitting in the chair, the subject was instructed to swallow 10 and 20 mL of water. Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to measure the muscle activity of the supra‐hyoid (SH) and infra‐hyoid (IH) muscles. Also, sitting posture alignment (head, cervical and shoulder angle) was also performed. Data were analysed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) using a generalised linear model. Results There was no significant difference in terms of the head angle (P = .395). However, significant differences were found in relation to the cervical angle (P 
ISSN:0305-182X
1365-2842
DOI:10.1111/joor.12934