The possible mechanisms supporting the relationship between the masticatory and the musculoskeletal systems have been recently investigated. It has been suggested that jaw clenching promotes ergogenic effects on prime movers through the phenomenon of concurrent activation potentiation (CAP). The purpose of this study was to analyse the effects of jaw clenching and jaw clenching while wearing mouthguard (MG) on muscle activity and force output during three upper body isometric strength tests. Twelve highly trained rink-hockey athletes were recruited for the study. A randomized, repeated measures within study design was carried out to compare the acute effects of three experimental conditions: jaw clenching while wearing MG (MG), jaw clenching without MG (JAW) and non-jaw clenching (NON-JAW). Statistical analyses revealed significant higher force output (p < 0.05) in all tests for MG conditions with respect to NON-JAW. When comparing JAW and NON-JAW conditions an increased peak force was found in handgrip (p = 0.045, d = 0.26) and bench press (p = 0.018, d = 0.43) but not in biceps curl (p = 0.562, d = 0.13). When comparing MG and JAW conditions, no differences were observed in any force output. In terms of muscle activity, significant differences were found in the agonist muscles of the handgrip test for MG with respect to NON-JAW (p = 0.031-0.046, d = 0.25-1.1). This study demonstrated that jaw clenching, with and without MG, may be a good strategy to elicit the CAP phenomenon, which seems to promote ergogenic effects in upper body isometric force production. The non-significant differences observed between JAW and MG suggested that the use of MG doesn't make a difference in enhancing the isometric force production neither the muscle activity in upper body isometric strength.

Training using instability devices is common; however, for highly trained athletes, a single device may not provide sufficient challenge. This study examines the effect of superimposed vibration in suspended kneeling rollout. Seventeen physically active participants performed the exercise with non-vibration, vibration at 25 Hz, and vibration at 40 Hz. Muscle activation of the pectoralis clavicularis, pectoralis sternalis, anterior deltoid, serratus anterior, infraspinatus, and latissimus dorsi was recorded during exercise, and the perception of effort was recorded after exercise (OMNI-Res scale). One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences for the kneeling rollout (p < 0.05). Friedman’s test showed significant differences in the OMNI-Res (p = 0.003). Pairwise comparison showed significant differences in the anterior deltoid (p = 0.004), latissimus dorsi (p < 0.001), infraspinatus (p = 0.001), and global activity (p < 0.001) between the 25 Hz and non-vibration conditions. It also showed significant differences between the 40 Hz and non-vibration conditions for pectoralis sternalis (p = 0.021), anterior deltoid (p = 0.005), latissimus dorsi (p < 0.001), infraspinatus (p = 0.027), and global activity (p < 0.001). The post hoc Conover pairwise comparison showed significant differences in the OMNI-Res only between the non-vibration and vibration at 40 Hz conditions (p = 0.011). Superimposed vibration increases the muscle activation of the upper limbs when performing the suspended kneeling rollout.