Acupuncture and Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation Do Not Suppress Gag Reflex.

Cynthia Diep, Hiroyuki Karibe, Greg Goddard, Yen Phan, Andrew Shubov
Author Information
  1. Cynthia Diep: University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  2. Hiroyuki Karibe: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Nippon Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
  3. Greg Goddard: University of California System, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  4. Yen Phan: University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  5. Andrew Shubov: University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Abstract

Gagging is a problem for many dental patients, as well as patients undergoing medical procedures, such as intubation. Research to date on the gag reflex has been limited by a lack of objective measures for measuring this reflex. A validated quantitative method was used to measure if acupuncture or transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) at Pericardium 6 (PC 6) and Stomach 36 (ST 36) suppressed the gag reflex, compared with a sham placebo. The subjects were 60 healthy adults randomly chosen to receive acupuncture, TEAS, or sham-TEAS on PC 6, located on the forearm, and ST 36, located on the lower leg. The gag reflex was measured by inserting a saliva ejector slowly down each participant's throat to determine the maximum tolerance of the gag reflex; the insertion length was used as an index of this reflex. There was a significant difference in pre- and postintervention insertion lengths in all groups (paired -test; all groups;  < 0.001). The differences in the insertion length among the groups ( = 0.76) and the interaction effect (group × time) were not significant ( = 0.79; 2-way analysis of variance). This study suggested that PC 6 and ST 36 stimulation was no different than placebo for alleviating the gag reflex.

Keywords

References

  1. J Dent. 2008 Jul;36(7):494-9 [PMID: 18513848]
  2. Dent Update. 2005 Mar;32(2):74-6, 78-80 [PMID: 15819150]
  3. J Oral Rehabil. 2008 Mar;35(3):196-202 [PMID: 18254797]
  4. Am J Chin Med. 2005;33(1):157-64 [PMID: 15844844]
  5. Br Dent J. 2010 May 22;208(10):E19 [PMID: 20489741]
  6. Br Dent J. 2006 Dec 9;201(11):721-5; discussion 715 [PMID: 17159959]
  7. Neurosci Lett. 1998 May 8;247(1):25-8 [PMID: 9637401]
  8. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  9. J Oral Rehabil. 2018 Oct;45(10):798-804 [PMID: 29971807]
  10. J Oral Rehabil. 2020 May;47(5):591-598 [PMID: 32003041]
  11. Gen Dent. 2000 Jul-Aug;48(4):446-52 [PMID: 11199620]
  12. Br Dent J. 2001 Jun 9;190(11):611-3 [PMID: 11441900]
  13. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 May;18(5):430-3, 436, 438 passim [PMID: 9533356]
  14. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Nov;78(5):533 [PMID: 9399203]
  15. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014 May;145(5):452-8 [PMID: 24789238]
  16. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 13;2019(11): [PMID: 31721146]
  17. Auton Neurosci. 2008 Feb 29;138(1-2):91-8 [PMID: 18083640]
  18. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Jul-Aug;14(4):364-6 [PMID: 11508093]
  19. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2014 Jul 01;5(2):e3 [PMID: 25089175]
  20. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 May;91(5):459-67 [PMID: 15153854]
  21. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Dec;9(6):847-9 [PMID: 14736356]
  22. J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Jun;12(5):489-95 [PMID: 16813514]
  23. J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Jul;42(7):487-94 [PMID: 25784089]
  24. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987 Feb;114(2):178-83 [PMID: 2880883]
  25. Dent Update. 2005 Jan-Feb;32(1):26-8, 31-2 [PMID: 15739661]
  26. J Oral Rehabil. 2013 Feb;40(2):106-11 [PMID: 23231041]
  27. J Oral Rehabil. 2011 Jan;38(1):3-11 [PMID: 20557433]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0reflexgag636acupuncturestimulationPCSTplaceboinsertiongroupspatientsusedtranscutaneouselectricalacupointTEASlocatedlengthsignificant = 0GaggingproblemmanydentalwellundergoingmedicalproceduresintubationResearchdatelimitedlackobjectivemeasuresmeasuringvalidatedquantitativemethodmeasurePericardiumStomachsuppressedcomparedshamsubjects60healthyadultsrandomlychosenreceivesham-TEASforearmlowerlegmeasuredinsertingsalivaejectorslowlyparticipant'sthroatdeterminemaximumtoleranceindexdifferencepre-postinterventionlengthspaired-test< 0001differencesamong76interactioneffectgroup × time792-wayanalysisvariancestudysuggesteddifferentalleviatingAcupunctureTranscutaneousElectricalAcupointStimulationSuppressGagReflexgagging

Similar Articles

Cited By