Difference between revisions of "Bilateral Trigeminal neuromotor organic symmetry"

Line 181: Line 181:


===Electrophysiological procedure===
===Electrophysiological procedure===
As above mentioned, the transcranial electrical stimulation (<sub>e</sub>TCS) of both trigeminal roots induced a neuromuscular response called “bilateral Root-Motor-Evoked Potential” ( R-MEPs). It was performed by an electromyographic device (Nemus -NGF, EBNeuro, Firenze, Italy).<ref>Frisardi G (1992) The use of transcranial stimulation in the fabrication of an occlusal splint. J Prosthet Dent 68: 355-360.</ref><ref>Frisardi G, Ravazzani P, Tognola G, Grandori F (1997) Electric versus magnetic transcranial stimulation of the trigeminal system in healthy subjects. Clinical applications in gnathology. J Oral Rehabil 24: 920-928.</ref>[[File:Finite Elements - electric field within the intracranial brain tissue - FEM.jpg|thumb|'''Figure 1:''' The figure shows the arrangement of the electrodes on the skull and the distribution of electric fields inside the intracranial brain tissue]]Considering the safety limitations,<ref>IEC60601-2-40 (1998) Medical electrical equipment: Particular requirements for the safety of electromyographs and evoked response equipment.</ref> we computed the energy delivered for each single pulse in our application through this formula: <math>E=P\cdot\Delta T=R\cdot I^2\cdot \Delta T=2.5 mJ</math> per pulse. Since 2 stimulators were used, the limits were ten times lower than those stated in the IEC regulation.
As above mentioned, the transcranial electrical stimulation (<sub>e</sub>TCS) of both trigeminal roots induced a neuromuscular response called “bilateral Root-Motor-Evoked Potential” ( R-MEPs). It was performed by an electromyographic device (Nemus -NGF, EBNeuro, Firenze, Italy).<ref>Frisardi G (1992) The use of transcranial stimulation in the fabrication of an occlusal splint. J Prosthet Dent 68: 355-360.</ref><ref>Frisardi G, Ravazzani P, Tognola G, Grandori F (1997) Electric versus magnetic transcranial stimulation of the trigeminal system in healthy subjects. Clinical applications in gnathology. J Oral Rehabil 24: 920-928.</ref>[
[File:Finite Elements - electric field within the intracranial brain tissue - FEM.jpg|thumb|'''Figure 1:''' The figure shows the arrangement of the electrodes on the skull and the distribution of electric fields inside the intracranial brain tissue]]  
 
Considering the safety limitations,<ref>IEC60601-2-40 (1998) Medical electrical equipment: Particular requirements for the safety of electromyographs and evoked response equipment.</ref> we computed the energy delivered for each single pulse in our application through this formula: <math>E=P\cdot\Delta T=R\cdot I^2\cdot \Delta T=2.5 mJ</math> per pulse. Since 2 stimulators were used, the limits were ten times lower than those stated in the IEC regulation.
The electrodes were arranged as described below. A common anode to the 2 electrostimulators was placed at the vertex, while a cathode electrode was placed on each side at 12-13 cm along the line joining the vertex to the acoustic meatus in the parietal region. The electrical stimulus consisted of a square wave lasting 250 μsec at a voltage of ≅ 300 V and maximum current of 100 mA.
The electrodes were arranged as described below. A common anode to the 2 electrostimulators was placed at the vertex, while a cathode electrode was placed on each side at 12-13 cm along the line joining the vertex to the acoustic meatus in the parietal region. The electrical stimulus consisted of a square wave lasting 250 μsec at a voltage of ≅ 300 V and maximum current of 100 mA.


Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, Interface administrators, lookupuser, oversight, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators, translator, Widget editors
17,889

edits