Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorDemirkan, M. Yusuf
dc.contributor.authorOral, M. Ayhan
dc.contributor.authorÇobanoğlu, Gamze
dc.contributor.authorGüzel, Nevin A.
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-05T11:12:21Z
dc.date.available2025-08-05T11:12:21Z
dc.date.issued2025en_US
dc.identifier.citationDemirkan, M. Y., Oral, M. A., Cobanoglu, G., & Guzel, N. A. (2025). Effects of two mobilization with movement techniques to the talocrural joint in individuals with dorsiflexion limitation: clinician vs self-applied. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2025.2496776en_US
dc.identifier.issn0959-3985
dc.identifier.issn1532-5040
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2025.2496776
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/10803
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Dorsiflexion (DF) range of motion (ROM) limitation is a risk factor for many injuries. Many interventions are applied to individuals with DF limitation to increase DF-ROM. Purpose: To investigate the effects of single-session Clinician and Self-applied Mobilization with Movement (C-MWM and S-MWM) methods on DF-ROM, balance, and jump. Methods: The Weight Bearing Lunge Test was used to assess DF-ROM. Individuals with DF-ROM below 45 degrees were defined as having DF limitation. Forty-eight individuals were randomly assigned to C-MWM, S-MWM, and control groups. Balance was assessed with Y-Balance Test (YBT), and jumping was evaluated by a single-leg countermovement jump test. Clinicians mobilized participants in the C-MWM group, while those in the S-MWM group were mobilized with the help of a non-elastic belt. Those in the control group performed only lunge movements. Results: An increase in DF-ROM was observed in the C-MWM (d = 0.66, p = .001) and S-MWM groups (d = 0.53, p = .001). In YBT, anterior (C-MWM: d = 0.53, p = .001; S-MWM: d = 0.47, p = .028), posteromedial (C-MWM: d = 0.44, p = .023; S-MWM: d = 0.40, p = .011), and composite scores (C-MWM: d = 0.65, p = .004; S-MWM: d = 0.32, p = .013) improved in C-MWM and S-MWM groups. There was no significant difference in the posterolateral direction in all groups (p > .05). In the control group, there was a change only in composite score (d = 0.38, p = .016). There was no change in a jump in three groups (p > .05). When the gains obtained in groups were compared, it was observed that the gains in all parameters were similar (p > .05). Conclusion: When it is desired to increase DF-ROM and improve balance in individuals with DF limitation, the clinician or self can apply MWM to the talocrural joint.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis Ltd.en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectTalocrural jointen_US
dc.subjectManual therapyen_US
dc.subjectRange of motionen_US
dc.subjectPostural balanceen_US
dc.subjectJumpen_US
dc.titleEffects of two mobilization with movement techniques to the talocrural joint in individuals with dorsiflexion limitation: clinician vs self-applieden_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Güneysu Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Yüksekokulu, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorÇobanoğlu, Gamze
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09593985.2025.2496776en_US
dc.relation.journalPhysiotherapy Theory and Practiceen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster