Reliability between the two‐colour chewing gum and the gummy‐jelly tests used for the assessment of masticatory performance

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability of two methods used to assess masticatory performance and attempt to correlate them to achieve interchangeability between the methods.MethodsTwelve healthy dentate volunteers (men = 6, women = 6; mean age = 28.3 ± 4.1) with no known dental or medical pathologies were requested to participate in this study. Each participant completed three masticatory performance assessments, including two two‐colour mixing‐ability tests using chewing‐gums (CG: gum#1 and gum#2) and the gummy‐jelly (GJ) test. For each method, participants created five samples each (total = 15 measurements per participant, gum#1 = 5, gum#2 = 5, GJ = 5). For the gum#1 and gum#2 methods, the predetermined chewing cycles were fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cycles, and for the GJ method, the time duration was fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 s. The parameter measures were submitted to Z‐score transformation, and Bland–Altman plots were generated to graphically compare the differences between two techniques against their means. Additionally, mountain plot was used to assess the cumulative distribution of measurement error between the methods.ResultsA total of 180 measurements were recorded. There were significant correlations between the number of chewing cycles/chewing time and masticatory performance using the gum#1 (r = −.753; p < .001), gum#2 (r = −.838; p < .001) and GJ (r = .730). When all tests were considered together for each method, significant correlations were found (p < .001). A descriptive range of mean values aiming to produce reference value ranges for predictive purposes was achieved considering the interchangeably among the methods [CG = GJ (VoH‐mg = dL): 10 cycle = 10 s: 0.329 = 110; 15 cycles = 15 s: 0.177 = 164; 20 cycles = 20 s: 0.130 = 205; 25 cycles = 25 s: 0.086 = 200; 30 cycles = 30 s: 0.077 = 267].ConclusionThe strong correlations and high consistency between the two masticatory performance methods found in this study conclude that the two assessment methods are reliable and interchangeable. Further evaluations are warranted to arrive at a conversion formula for translation of the results between the two methods.