A longitudinal study of changes in masticatory performance of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery

Changes in the Duration of the Chewing Cycle in Patients With Skeletal Class III With and Without Asymmetry Before and After Orthognathic Surgery

“…In patients with mandibular retrognathia, chewing performance was not influenced by orthodontics before surgery, and it was impaired with respect to that of control subjects before surgery 20 . This finding was consistent with results obtained from groups of patients with a variety of dentfacial deformities 4,7 and in patients mandibular prognathism 5,6,8 . Some previous studies concluded that at least 1 year after mandibular advancement surgery, chewing performance was not improved 21 .…”

Changes in the Duration of the Chewing Cycle in Patients With Skeletal Class III With and Without Asymmetry Before and After Orthognathic Surgery

“…In patients with mandibular retrognathia, chewing performance was not influenced by orthodontics before surgery, and it was impaired with respect to that of control subjects before surgery 20 . This finding was consistent with results obtained from groups of patients with a variety of dentfacial deformities 4,7 and in patients mandibular prognathism 5,6,8 . Some previous studies concluded that at least 1 year after mandibular advancement surgery, chewing performance was not improved 21 .…”

Chewing efficiency of pre‐orthognathic surgery patients: selection and breakage of food particles

“…Consistent with previous studies (1–5), the chewing performance of patients was impaired with respect to that of control subjects. The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles.…”

“…The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles. This ratio is similar to the values of 1.39 and 1.35, which can be derived from previous studies using carrot as a test food (4, 5). Because of a smaller comminution rate, X 50 after the first 15 cycles was larger for the patients than for the controls.…”

Malocclusion, Mastication and the Gastrointestinal System

“…Yet chewing efficiency 6 months after surgery and 2 months after debonding was significantly less in the surgical group she studied than that in an untreated adult control group [98]. That finding concurs with several other studies examining orthognathic-surgical patient cohorts exhibiting mandibular prognathism [34,35,41,42,54,77], mandibular retrognathism [89,90] or other malocclusions [84,85,105] and parameters relevant to mastication such as the size of occlusal contact surfaces [34,35,42,54], maximum masticatory force [34,35,54] and chewing efficiency [41,42,105]. Van den Braber et al [91] observed no improvement in the chewing function of patients presenting mandibular retrognathism due to either preoperative orthodontic measures or shortly after surgical mandibular advancement [90].…”

Changes in the Duration of the Chewing Cycle in Patients With Skeletal Class III With and Without Asymmetry Before and After Orthognathic Surgery

“…In patients with mandibular retrognathia, chewing performance was not influenced by orthodontics before surgery, and it was impaired with respect to that of control subjects before surgery 20 . This finding was consistent with results obtained from groups of patients with a variety of dentfacial deformities 4,7 and in patients mandibular prognathism 5,6,8 . Some previous studies concluded that at least 1 year after mandibular advancement surgery, chewing performance was not improved 21 .…”

Chewing efficiency of pre‐orthognathic surgery patients: selection and breakage of food particles

“…Consistent with previous studies (1–5), the chewing performance of patients was impaired with respect to that of control subjects. The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles.…”

“…The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles. This ratio is similar to the values of 1.39 and 1.35, which can be derived from previous studies using carrot as a test food (4, 5). Because of a smaller comminution rate, X 50 after the first 15 cycles was larger for the patients than for the controls.…”

Malocclusion, Mastication and the Gastrointestinal System

“…Yet chewing efficiency 6 months after surgery and 2 months after debonding was significantly less in the surgical group she studied than that in an untreated adult control group [98]. That finding concurs with several other studies examining orthognathic-surgical patient cohorts exhibiting mandibular prognathism [34,35,41,42,54,77], mandibular retrognathism [89,90] or other malocclusions [84,85,105] and parameters relevant to mastication such as the size of occlusal contact surfaces [34,35,42,54], maximum masticatory force [34,35,54] and chewing efficiency [41,42,105]. Van den Braber et al [91] observed no improvement in the chewing function of patients presenting mandibular retrognathism due to either preoperative orthodontic measures or shortly after surgical mandibular advancement [90].…”

Changes in the Duration of the Chewing Cycle in Patients With Skeletal Class III With and Without Asymmetry Before and After Orthognathic Surgery

“…In patients with mandibular retrognathia, chewing performance was not influenced by orthodontics before surgery, and it was impaired with respect to that of control subjects before surgery 20 . This finding was consistent with results obtained from groups of patients with a variety of dentfacial deformities 4,7 and in patients mandibular prognathism 5,6,8 . Some previous studies concluded that at least 1 year after mandibular advancement surgery, chewing performance was not improved 21 .…”

Chewing efficiency of pre‐orthognathic surgery patients: selection and breakage of food particles

“…Consistent with previous studies (1–5), the chewing performance of patients was impaired with respect to that of control subjects. The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles.…”

“…The median particle size X 50 for the patients was 1.66 times larger after both 15 and 30 chewing cycles. This ratio is similar to the values of 1.39 and 1.35, which can be derived from previous studies using carrot as a test food (4, 5). Because of a smaller comminution rate, X 50 after the first 15 cycles was larger for the patients than for the controls.…”

Malocclusion, Mastication and the Gastrointestinal System

“…Yet chewing efficiency 6 months after surgery and 2 months after debonding was significantly less in the surgical group she studied than that in an untreated adult control group [98]. That finding concurs with several other studies examining orthognathic-surgical patient cohorts exhibiting mandibular prognathism [34,35,41,42,54,77], mandibular retrognathism [89,90] or other malocclusions [84,85,105] and parameters relevant to mastication such as the size of occlusal contact surfaces [34,35,42,54], maximum masticatory force [34,35,54] and chewing efficiency [41,42,105]. Van den Braber et al [91] observed no improvement in the chewing function of patients presenting mandibular retrognathism due to either preoperative orthodontic measures or shortly after surgical mandibular advancement [90].…”