Force analysis of prosthetic appliances during function

Yurkstas, A.; Curby, William A.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(53)90039-0

Cited by 82 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The smaller total chewing forces, in comparison with the 'bilateral end abutment subjects' (Lundgren & Laurell, 1985), were not compensated for by a larger number of chewing strokes in preparing the bolus for swallowing as has been suggested by, for instance, de Boever et al (1978) and Gibbs et al (1981b). The number of chewing strokes until swallowing was largely the same as has been found in other studies (Yurkstas & Curby, 1953;Gibbs et al, 1981b;Jemt, 1981;Ingerwall & Carlsson, 1982;Lundgren & Laurell, 1985). This indicates that (above a lower limit value) the magnitude of the total chewing force is not critical for preparation of the bolus for swallowing and is further support for the lack of correlation between total chewing force and number of chewing strokes per chewing sequence found by Lundgren & Laurell (1985).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridges of cross‐arch extension

Lundgren¹,

Laurell²

1986

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pattern of axially (perpendicular to the occlusal plane) directed occlusal forces developed during light tooth tapping in habitual occlusion, chewing, swallowing and maximal biting was studied in twelve subjects whose dentitions were periodontally treated and prosthetically restored with cross-arch bridges with unilateral posterior two-unit cantilevers. The measuring devices consisted of four strain-gauge transducers uniformly and bilaterally mounted in pontics of maxillary bridges to represent the posterior (end abutment and distal cantilever respectively) and anterior regions. Thus, the forces could be studied locally in various parts of the dentition simultaneously as well as totally over the entire dentition. The results demonstrated that the distal cantilever unit, on average, was subjected to forces about or less than half of those over the contralateral end abutment unit irrespective of the activity studied. Furthermore, the cantilever forces either equalled or were even significantly smaller than those of the anterior regions. All subjects preferred the end abutment side as the chewing side. When the cantilever side was used as the chewing side, which occurred most infrequently, the bolus was usually located in the anterior region. The mean total chewing force (about 50 N) was only about half of that found in a previous study of subjects supplied with cross-arch bridges with bilateral end abutments (Lundgren & Laurell, 1985). Furthermore, on average only 26% of the voluntary muscular capacity was used during chewing, compared with 37% in the 'bilateral end abutment group' referred to. The reasons for the comparably small forces over the distal cantilever unit and the lower muscular utilization during chewing in cross-bridges with unilateral posterior two-unit cantilevers as well as the implications of the findings for the dimension of such bridge constructions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridges of cross‐arch extension

Lundgren¹,

Laurell²

1986

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technical advances during the last thirty years have made it possible to use small transducers which can be built into bridges, crowns and dentures which enable in vivo recording of first-bite and chewing forces as well as other functions (e.g., Yurkstas and Curby 1953;Nyquist and Owall 1968). Both strain gauge transducers and piezoelectric transducers have been used.…”

Section: Bite Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review Food Texture and Dental Science

Boyar

Kilcast

1986

Journal of Texture Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The techniques used in dentistry which enable the monitoring of mastication include gnathosonics, electromyography, cinematography and the use of various electronic, intra‐oral, instruments. The forces involved during the masticatory cycle have been estimated using a variety of both extra‐and intra‐oral devices. The possible implications of this knowledge are discussed in relation to obtaining greater information from instrumental techniques, developing more meaningticl mechanical test methods, improving methodology used in the establishment of texture panels and in acquiring a greater understanding of results obtained from such sensory evaluations.

show abstract

“…Yurkstas & Curby (1953) reported an average chewing rate of 80/min for the complete denture wearer with tougher foods being chewed at a rate of 65/min. Partial denture wearers chewed slightly more rapidly averaging 100/min on soft foods, and 90/min on tough foods.…”

Section: The Artificial Dentitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anderson & Picton (1958) using the techniques previously described by Anderson (1956a and b) found that masticatory loads on a lower first molar tooth during unilateral chewing of bread by four subjects showed a great similarity between those on the chewing side and those on the empty side, and reported mean whole-tooth loads that rose to 14 kg per chewing stroke. Yurkstas & Curby (1953) using the modified equipment of Brudevold (1951) were able to use three strain gauge units in dentures and record simultaneously. They studied the forces obtained on subjects with complete dentures, a partial lower denture against a complete upper denture, and a partial lower denture against natural teeth.…”

Section: (A) Measuring Devices Placed Between the Teethmentioning

confidence: 99%