It has been suggested that the provision of dental implants can improve the oral function of subjects with severely resorbed mandibles, possibly restoring function to the level experienced by satisfied wearers of conventional complete dentures. Nevertheless, a quantitative comparison has never been made and can be drawn from the literature only with difficulty, since studies differ greatly in methodology. To make such a comparison, we measured bite force and chewing efficiency by using identical methods in subjects with overdentures, complete full dentures, and natural dentitions. Our results indicated that bite forces achieved with overdentures on dental implants were between those achieved with artificial and natural dentitions. Chewing efficiency was significantly greater than that of subjects with full dentures (low mandible), but was still lower than that of subjects with full dentures (high mandible) and overdentures on bare roots. Differences in the height of the mandible revealed significant differences in chewing efficiency between the two full-denture groups. Furthermore, subjects with a shortened dental arch exerted bite forces similar to those of subjects with a complete-natural dentition, but their chewing efficiency was limited due to the reduced occlusal area. For all groups combined, a significant correlation was found between maximum bite force and chewing efficiency. Nearly half of the variation in chewing efficiency was explained by bite force alone.

During chewing, food is reduced in size, while saliva moistens the food and binds the masticated food into a bolus that can be easily swallowed. Characteristics of the oral system, like number of teeth, bite force and salivary flow, will influence the masticatory process. Masticatory function of healthy persons has been studied extensively the last decades. These results were used as a comparison for outcomes of various patient groups. In this review, findings from literature on masticatory function for both healthy persons and patient groups are presented. Masticatory function of patients with compromised dentition appeared to be significantly reduced when compared with the function of healthy controls. The influence of oral rehabilitation, e.g. dental restorations, implant treatment and temporomandibular disorder treatment, on masticatory function will be discussed. For instance, implant treatment was shown to have a significant positive effect on both bite force and masticatory performance. Also, patient satisfaction with an implant-retained prosthesis was high in comparison with the situation before implant treatment. The article also reviews the neuromuscular control of chewing. The jaw muscle activity needed to break solid food is largely reflexly induced. Immediate muscle response is necessary to maintain a constant chewing rhythm under varying food resistance conditions. Finally, the influence of food characteristics on the masticatory process is discussed. Dry and hard products require more chewing cycles before swallowing than moist and soft foods. More time is needed to break the food and to add enough saliva to form a cohesive bolus suitable for swallowing.

No abstract

The type of attachment that is used in implant-supported mandibular overdentures may influence the retention and stability of the prosthesis and, thus, masticatory function. In this within-subject cross-over clinical trial, we examined the hypothesis that greater retention and stability of the overdenture improve the masticatory function. Eighteen edentulous subjects received 2 oral implants, a new overdenture, and, successively, 3 different suprastructure modalities: magnet, ball, and bar-clip. Masticatory performance, masticatory efficiency, and swallowing threshold were measured. The masticatory function significantly improved after implant treatment with each of the 3 attachments. We observed small differences in masticatory function among the 3 attachment types: slightly better masticatory performance with ball and bar-clip than with magnet attachments. The number of chewing cycles until swallowing hardly decreased after implant treatment. We conclude that significantly better masticatory performance, combined with a slightly smaller number of chewing cycles after implant treatment, results in smaller food particles being swallowed.