Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Pain-free bite force (PFBF) is a promising measure to evaluate bite function in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), yet the reliability of the measure is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: Establish 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).
METHODS: Thirty 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.
RESULTS: Within-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).
CONCLUSIONS: Single 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.
OBJECTIVE: Establish 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).
METHODS: Thirty 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.
RESULTS: Within-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).
CONCLUSIONS: Single 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.
摘要：
背景：无痛咬合力（PFBF）是评估颞下颌关节紊乱病（TMD）咬合功能的一种有前途的措施，然而，该措施的可靠性是未知的。
目的：建立（1）在健康人群中，在支持和不支持的三个试验中，PFBF的会内测试重测可靠性；（2）测量标准误差（SEM）和最小可检测变化（MDC）。
方法：30名健康参与者（n=15名女性，平均[SD]年龄=34.4[11.0]岁）完成了两个疗程（相隔30-60分钟），包括每侧的三个PFBF试验，在支撑和不支撑的坐姿中，为60名(30名参与者×双方)复试评估提供数据。使用组内相关系数（ICC）确定第一次试验的重测可靠性和每个位置的三个试验的平均值，在分别计算男性（M）和女性（F）的相应SEM和MDC之前。
结果：对于支持坐姿（ICC=0.85；SEMM/F=99/84N；MDCM/F=275/232N）和不支持坐姿（ICC=0.91；SEMM/F=72/59N，MDCM/F=200/163N)，对于支持坐席的三项试验的平均值(ICC=0.89；SEMM/F=66/79N，MDCM/F=182/220N)和不支持的坐姿(ICC=0.92；SEMM/F=64/59N，MDCM/F=177/164N)。
结论：在支持和不支持的坐姿中进行的单项试验和平均三项试验似乎是测量健康人群PFBF的可靠方法。尽管由于较高的重测可靠性，但在无支持的坐姿中使用三个试验的平均值测试PFBF似乎优于其他方法。和较低的SEM和MDC。未来的研究应该检查PFBF在TMD人群中的可靠性。
目的：建立（1）在健康人群中，在支持和不支持的三个试验中，PFBF的会内测试重测可靠性；（2）测量标准误差（SEM）和最小可检测变化（MDC）。
方法：30名健康参与者（n=15名女性，平均[SD]年龄=34.4[11.0]岁）完成了两个疗程（相隔30-60分钟），包括每侧的三个PFBF试验，在支撑和不支撑的坐姿中，为60名(30名参与者×双方)复试评估提供数据。使用组内相关系数（ICC）确定第一次试验的重测可靠性和每个位置的三个试验的平均值，在分别计算男性（M）和女性（F）的相应SEM和MDC之前。
结果：对于支持坐姿（ICC=0.85；SEMM/F=99/84N；MDCM/F=275/232N）和不支持坐姿（ICC=0.91；SEMM/F=72/59N，MDCM/F=200/163N)，对于支持坐席的三项试验的平均值(ICC=0.89；SEMM/F=66/79N，MDCM/F=182/220N)和不支持的坐姿(ICC=0.92；SEMM/F=64/59N，MDCM/F=177/164N)。
结论：在支持和不支持的坐姿中进行的单项试验和平均三项试验似乎是测量健康人群PFBF的可靠方法。尽管由于较高的重测可靠性，但在无支持的坐姿中使用三个试验的平均值测试PFBF似乎优于其他方法。和较低的SEM和MDC。未来的研究应该检查PFBF在TMD人群中的可靠性。
