Consensus on the terminologies and methodologies for masticatory assessment

Abstract

A large number of methodological procedures and experimental conditions are reported to describe the masticatory process. However, similar terms are sometimes employed to describe different methodologies. Standardisation of terms is essential to allow comparisons among different studies. This article was aimed to provide a consensus concerning the terms, definitions and technical methods generally reported when evaluating masticatory function objectively and subjectively. The consensus is based on the results from discussions and consultations among world‐leading researchers in the related research areas. Advantages, limitations and relevance of each method are also discussed. The present consensus provides a revised framework of standardised terms to improve the consistent use of masticatory terminology and facilitate further investigations on masticatory function analysis. In addition, this article also outlines various methods used to evaluate the masticatory process and their advantages and disadvantages in order to help researchers to design their experiments.

Oral function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: A matched case–control study

“…The chewing capacity depends on the force and coordination of chewing muscles, cheek muscles, and the tongue, the production of saliva, and the dentition [10e13]. The gold standard test for determining chewing function are comminution tests ("sieving method"), where test foods (natural or artificial) are chewed during a given number of chewing cycles, spat out, dried, sieved through decreasing mesh apertures to separate them for size, and finally weighed to measure food grinding according to the achieved particle size distribution [13]. However, this method is expensive, time-consuming, and may result in the aspiration of the test-food.…”

“…However, this method is expensive, time-consuming, and may result in the aspiration of the test-food. A reliable alternative to comminution tests represent color-mixing ability tests for masticatory performance [13]. For instance, the chewing function can be evaluated by the degree of mixing and kneading a two-colored chewing gum, using opto-electronic image analysis [14].…”

Patient-reported outcome measures for masticatory function in adults: a systematic review

“…There is a recent consensus report on the assessment of masticatory function [ 5 ] in the literature. In the consensus report [ 5 ], five PROMs for masticatory function were mentioned, among which four were included in the present review.…”

“…There is a recent consensus report on the assessment of masticatory function [ 5 ] in the literature. In the consensus report [ 5 ], five PROMs for masticatory function were mentioned, among which four were included in the present review. The PROM that was not included in the present review was an instrument containing three questions based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) model for oral function [ 47 ].…”

“…Masticatory function has been found to be associated with physical activity level, disability, comorbidities and cognitive status [ 4 ]. A recent consensus report classified the methodologies for assessment of masticatory function into three types, namely direct objective assessment, indirect assessment and subjective assessment [ 5 ]. In direct objective assessment, masticatory function is evaluated by assessing a test material either after a pre-determined number of chewing strokes (masticatory performance) or at the moment when the study participant feels the urge to swallow (swallowing threshold).…”