The evaluation of masticatory function with low adhesive colour‐developing chewing gum

Matsui, Yoshihiko; Ohno, Kohsuke; Michi, Ken-ichi; Hata, Hirofumi; Yamagata, Kensuke; Ohtsuka, Sumimasa

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00849.x

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of the studies ( n = 32, 70%) were rated as poor or fair (Abe, Furuya, & Suzuki, ; Asakawa, Fueki, & Ohyama, ; Felicio, Couto, Ferreira, & Mestriner Junior, ; Eberhard et al, ; Eberhard et al, ; Endo et al, ; Fauzza & Lyons, ; Goto et al, ; Halazonetis, Schimmel, Antonarakis, & Christou, ; Hama, Kanazawa, Minakuchi, Uchida, & Sasaki, ; Hama, Kanazawa, Minakuchi, Uchida, & Sasaki, ; Hayakawa, Watanabe, Hirano, & Nagao, ; Huggare, ; Ishikawa, Watanabe, Hayakawa, Minakuchi, & Uchida, ; Kamiyama, Kanazawa, Fujinami, & Minakuchi, ; Khoury‐Ribas, Ayuso‐Montero, Rovira‐Lastra, Peraire, & Martinez‐Gomis, ; Kobayashi, Shiga, Arakawa, & Yokoyama, ; Lujan‐Climent et al, ; Mahmood, Watson, Ogden, & Hawkins, ; Matsui et al, ; Mowlana et al, ; Nokubi et al, ; Ohara, Tsukiyama, Ogawa, & Koyano, ; Prinz, ; Sato et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Shiga, Kobayashi, Arakawa, Yokoyama, & Unno, ; Slagter, Bosman, & Van der Bilt, ; Sugiura et al, ; Wada et al, ; Weijenberg et al, ) mainly to small sample sizes. Only a minority of the studies ( n = 4, 9%) presented sample size calculations (Khoury‐Ribas et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala, Vilanova, Costa, & Farias‐Neto, ; Wada et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance

Stjernfeldt

Sjögren²,

Wårdh

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study is to identify methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance (MP) and to evaluate their measurement properties. A secondary objective was to identify any reported adverse events associated with the methods to assess MP. Bibliographic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, and Cinahl databases. Eligible papers that satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised independently by two investigators. Four other investigators independently appraised any measurement properties of the assessment method according to the consensus‐based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. The qualities of the measurement properties were evaluated using predefined criteria. The level of evidence was rated by using data synthesis for each MP assessment method, where the rating was a product of methodological quality and measurement properties quality. All studies were quality assessed separately, initially, and subsequently for each method. Studies that described the use of identical assessment method received an individual score, and the pooled sum score resulted in an overall evidence synthesis. The level of evidence was synthesized across studies with an overall conclusion, that is, unknown, conflicting, limited, moderate, or strong evidence. Forty‐six out of 9,908 articles were appraised, and the assessment methods were categorized as comminution ( n = 21), mixing ability ( n = 23), or other methods ( n = 2). Different measurement properties were identified, in decreasing order construct validity ( n = 30), reliability ( n = 22), measurement error ( n = 9), criterion validity ( n = 6), and responsiveness ( n = 4). No adverse events associated with any assessment methods were reported. In a clinical setting or as a diagnostic method, there are no gold standard methods for assessing MP with a strong level of evidence for all measurement properties. All available assessment methods with variable level of evidence require lab‐intensive equipment, such as sieves or digital image software. Clinical trials with sufficient sample size, to infer trueness and precision, are needed for evaluating diagnostic values of available methods for assessing masticatory performance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance

Stjernfeldt

Sjögren²,

Wårdh

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Less attention has been paid to soft tissue function and the ensalivation and mixing of the bolus [4][5][6][7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of the Cheeks to the Intraoral Manipulation of Food

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of the teeth in chewing has been studied extensively; however, less attention has been paid to soft tissue function. In this study the process of mixing within the bolus and the contribution of the cheeks to this process were investigated using a test food constructed from two differently colored chewing gums. A cheek guard was placed into either the left the or right buccal sulcus. Eighteen dentate subjects were instructed to chew four samples of gum for 30 strokes, two samples with the cheek guard in place and two without. Upon completion, the gum was removed from the mouth and its length was measured. The bolus was then placed into a plastic bag and flattened. Pairs of flattened samples chewed with and without the cheek guard in place were then assessed by five judges who were asked to identify which of each pair was most mixed. Inhibition of the cheek during chewing resulted in significantly longer samples, which were also less mixed.

show abstract

“…Several methods have been The higher the average value, the better the patient's masticatory efficiency n sample size a Repeated measures ANOVA suggested [25][26][27][28], most of which are based on the ability of food trituration measured by different graduated sieves. According to Nakasima et al [29], these methods are not standardized as food may change due to pH alteration and saliva.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a mandibular RDP and new maxillary CD improve masticatory efficiency and quality of life in patients with a mandibular Kennedy class I arch?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the change in masticatory efficiency and quality of life of patients treated with mandibular Kennedy class I removable partial dentures (RPDs) and maxillary complete dentures at the Department of Dentistry of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. Materials and methods A total of 33 Kennedy class I patients were rehabilitated with maxillary complete dentures, and mandibular RPDs were selected for this non-randomized prospective intervention study. The patients had a mean age of 59.1 years. Masticatory efficiency was evaluated by colorimetric assay using fuchsin capsules. The measurements were conducted at baseline and 2 and 6 months after prosthesis insertion. Quality of life was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) at baseline and 6 months after denture insertion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied. Masticatory efficiency was evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA. Oral health-related quality of life was compared using the paired t test.Results There was no statistically significant difference in masticatory efficiency after denture insertion (p =0.101). Significant differences were found (p=0.010) for oral healthrelated quality of life. A significant improvement in psychological discomfort (p<0.01) and psychological disability (p<0.01) was observed. Mean difference value (95 % confidence interval) was 6.8 (3.8 to 9.7) points, reflecting a low impact of oral health on quality of life, considering the 0-56 range of variation of the OHIP-14 and a Cohen's d of 1.13. Conclusion According to the results of the present study, rehabilitation with Kennedy class I RPDs and complete dentures did not influence masticatory efficiency but improved oral health-related quality of life. Clinical relevance The association between the patient's quality of life and the masticatory efficiency is important for treatment predictability.

show abstract

The evaluation of masticatory function with low adhesive colour‐developing chewing gum

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance

Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance

Contribution of the Cheeks to the Intraoral Manipulation of Food

Does a mandibular RDP and new maxillary CD improve masticatory efficiency and quality of life in patients with a mandibular Kennedy class I arch?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About