No abstract

Masticatory performance is the outcome of a complex interplay of several factors. This study was carried out to determine the relationship between masticatory performance and several muscular‐related and occlusion‐related factors in a population with a full or near‐full complement of natural teeth. One‐hundred dentate young adults participated in this cross‐sectional study. Maximum muscular force with jaw, hand, tongue, and cheek were measured by means of a gnatodynamometer. Occlusal contact area and number of teeth in contact were determined in the maximal intercuspal position and in a 1.5‐mm right and left lateral excursion by means of interocclusal registrations that were scanned and analysed using image software. Masticatory performance was determined by sieving the Optosil particles resulting from 20 chewing cycles. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis showed that the maximum bite force in the region of the first molar had the best correlation with masticatory performance and explained 36% of its variation. Static occlusion characteristics such as occlusal contact area, the lack of lateral crossbite and the number of anterior teeth in contact explained an additional 9% of the variation in masticatory performance. These findings suggest that variables related to dynamic occlusion or tongue or cheek force do not enhance the prediction of masticatory performance.

No abstract

Summary The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to determine the preferred chewing side and whether chewing side preference is related to peripheral, functional or postural lateral preferences. One hundred and forty‐six adults with natural dentition performed three masticatory assays, each consisting of five trials of chewing three pieces of silicon placed into a latex bag for 20 cycles, either freestyle or unilaterally on the right‐ or left‐hand side. Occlusal contact area in the intercuspal position, maximum bite force, masticatory performance and cycle duration were measured and the lateral asymmetry of these variables was calculated. Laterality tests were performed to determine handedness, footedness, earedness and eyedness as functional preferences, and hand‐clasping, arm‐folding and leg‐crossing as postural lateral preferences. The preferred chewing side was determined using three different methods: assessment of the first chewing cycle for each trial, calculation of the asymmetry index from all cycles and application of a visual analogue scale. Bivariate relationship and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Among unilateral chewers, 77% of them preferred the right side for chewing. The factors most closely related to the preferred chewing side were asymmetry of bite force, asymmetry of masticatory performance and earedness, which explained up to 16% of the variance. Although several functional or postural lateral preferences seem to be related to the preferred chewing side, peripheral factors such as asymmetry of bite force and of masticatory performance are the most closely related to the preferred chewing side in adults with natural dentition.