PROPERTIES OF HIGH-THRESHOLD MECHANORECEPTORS IN THE ORAL-MUCOSA .1. RESPONSES TO DYNAMIC AND STATIC PRESSURE
PROPERTIES OF HIGH-THRESHOLD MECHANORECEPTORS IN THE ORAL-MUCOSA .1. RESPONSES TO DYNAMIC AND STATIC PRESSURE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/jn.1991.66.4.1272
复制
发表时间：
1991-10-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
HEFT, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
COOPER, B;AHLQUIST, M;HEFT, M
1.用单单位记录法测定了山羊口腔粘膜腭神经、牙槽神经和三叉神经节的高阈值机械感受器（HTMs）的机械反应特性。提出了以下意见。口腔粘膜的HTM可以根据其对机械刺激的阈值分为两个亚组。强压力感受器（IPRs）包括一组A-δ传入，阈值为2-16 g。机械感受器（MN）包括一组相对缓慢传导的传入（A-δ和C-纤维），具有较高的阈值范围（16-300 g）。在大多数情况下，MN缺乏压力转换能力。对动态或静态刺激的反应性测试显示，MN活动与压力之间很少有显著的函数拟合（4/20例）。IPRs与MN的不同之处在于它们的压力转换特性。传入反应间期与压力成反比。20例中有16例拟合出有意义的压力区间函数。压力与响应间隔的关系可用幂函数描述.动态或静态施加刺激的反应性测试表明，知识产权首选静压。在与静态施加刺激产生的数据拟合的幂函数中观察到更紧密的拟合和更陡的斜率（平均拟合函数，动态测试：LnISI = -0.97 LnISI +3.4;平均拟合函数，静态测试：LnISI = -1.6 LnISI +4.71）。压力-频率阈值（PFT），渐近线（PFA），和平均反应间隔（MRI）的静态测试系列的IPR确定。前两个值是产生粘膜HTM响应频率下限和上限的压力（平均PFT，1.48 N/mm 2;平均PFA，3.34 N/mm 2）。MRI（28 ms）仅根据函数计算。当PFT和PFA与激活阈值和功率函数相结合时，它们提供了对口腔粘膜IPR的反应性的范围和形式的相对完整的描述。
1. Mechanical response properties of high-threshold mechanoreceptors (HTMs) of the goat oral mucosa were determined by single-unit recording from the palatine and alveolar nerves and from the trigeminal ganglion. The following observations were made.2. HTMs of the oral mucosa could be separated into two subgroups on the basis of their threshold to mechanical stimulation. Intense pressure receptors (IPRs) comprised a group of A-delta afferents with thresholds of 2-16 g. Mechanonociceptors (MNs) comprised a group of relatively slowly conducting afferents (A-delta and C-fibers) with a higher threshold range (16-300 g).3. In most instances, MNs lacked pressure-transducing capacity. Tests of reactivity to dynamically or statically applied stimuli revealed that significant functions were rarely fit between MN activity and pressure (4/20 cases).4. IPRs differed from MNs by their pressure-transducing properties. The afferent response interval was in inverse proportion to the applied pressure. Significant pressure interval functions were fit in 16/20 cases. The relationship between pressure and response interval was best described by power functions.5. Tests of reactivity to dynamically or statically applied stimuli revealed that IPRs preferred static pressure. Tighter fits and steeper slopes were observed in power functions fit to data generated by statically applied stimuli (mean fitted function, dynamic test: LnISI = -0.97 LnP + 3.4; mean fitted function, static test: LnISI = -1.6 LnP + 4.71).6. Pressures-frequency thresholds (PFTs), asymptotes (PFAs), and mean response intervals (MRIs) were determined for IPRs from the static test series. The first two values are the pressures that produce the lower and upper limits of response frequency of mucosal HTMs (mean PFT, 1.48 N/mm2; mean PFA, 3.34 N/mm2). The MRI (28 ms) is simply computed from the function. When PFTs and PFAs are combined with activation threshold and power functions, they provide a relatively complete description of the range and form of reactivity of the IPR of the oral mucosa.