Receptive field properties of XXXX periodontal afferents responding to loading of premolar and molar teeth.

@entity1 @entity5335 @entity129 @entity22322 @entity2651 @entity72632
Impulses in 45 single mechanoreceptive afferents were recorded from the @entity1 @entity129 with permucosally inserted @entity5335 microelectrodes. All afferents responded to mechanical stimulation of one or more @entity2651 and most likely innervated their periodontal ligaments. For each afferent, isolated " @entity72632 shaped force profiles of similar magnitudes (252 +/- 24 mN; mean +/- SD) were applied to the lower first premolar, the second premolar, and the first molar on the recording side. The tooth loads were applied in six directions: lingual, facial, mesial, and distal in the horizontal plane and up and down in the vertical direction of the tooth. The afferents response during the static phase of the stimulus was analyzed. All afferents were slowly adapting, discharging continuously in response to static forces in at least one stimulation direction. Twenty-nine afferents (64%) were spontaneously active, exhibiting an ongoing discharge in the absence of external stimulation. Stimulation of a single tooth was found to excite each afferent most strongly. The @entity22322 ( @entity22322 ) was the first premolar for 23, the second premolar for 13, and the first molar for 9 afferents. About half of the afferent population also responded to loading of one or two more teeth. The response profiles of these afferents indicated that the multiple-teeth receptive fields were due to mechanical coupling between the teeth rather than branching of single afferents to innervate several teeth. The afferent responses to loading the mesial and distal halves of the first molars were very similar. Thus both intensive and directional aspects of the afferent response when loading one side of the tooth was preserved to a great extent when loading the other side. When loading the @entity22322 , the afferents typically showed excitatory responses in two to four of the six stimulation directions, i.e., the afferents were broadly tuned to direction of tooth loading. In the horizontal plane, the afferent populations at the premolar teeth expressed no clear directional preferences. The afferents at the molar, however, showed a strong directional bias in the distal-lingual direction. In the vertical plane, there was a preference for downward-directed forces with a gradually decreasing sensitivity distally along the dental arch. The present results demonstrate that @entity1 periodontal afferents supplying anterior and posterior teeth differ in their capacity to signal horizontal and vertical forces, respectively.
