Masticatory efficiency in complete denture wearers with reduced dental arches – a randomised cross‐over study

Abstract

One obstacle to placing artificial posterior teeth in manufacturing complete dentures is a reduction of the space between the maxilla and the mandible. Occasionally, second molar placement is not performed, as it does not affect aesthetics, phonetics or comfort. The aim of this study was to compare the masticatory efficiency between patients wearing maxillary and mandibular complete dentures with reduced dental arches (without second molars) (WSM) and with full dental arches (FDA). Twenty subjects were divided into two groups and randomly received new complete dentures. Patients in Group 1 were given dentures WSM, and those in Group 2 were given dentures with FDA. After the post-placement visits, an initial masticatory efficiency test was performed with Optocal, an artificial test food. Fifteen days later, second molars were placed in Group 1 and removed from Group 2, and a new test was performed. Comminuted material was treated and sieved under vibration. The mean and standard deviation of masticatory efficiency with FDA were 10.4 and 8.1, respectively. In the tests WSM, the mean and standard deviation were 8.4 and 3.3, respectively. After removing the second molars in Group 2 and adding them in Group 1, the mean and standard deviation were 15.7 and 14.7 for Group 1 and 12.5 and 10.4 for Group 2, respectively. Within the limitations of this study, placing artificial teeth up to the first molars can be performed when needed without compromising masticatory efficiency.

Virtual Bone Augmentation in Atrophic Mandible to Assess Optimal Implant-Prosthetic Rehabilitation—A Finite Element Study

“…The increase of bone volume seems to minimize the position effect of the teeth on the strain values recorded in the bone tissue. The small differences that do exist in strain between each of the implant sites may be because of the position that leads to a specific physiological load [41][42][43]. This may suggest that, in the absence of bone augmentation, further consideration needs to be given to the placement of the implant in atrophic ridges.…”

Effect of Denture Adhesives in New Complete Dentures During a Function

“…The natural food contains water, which might affect the results after the processing and drying of the test foods [18]. However, real food might psychologically influence mastication, thus the particle distribution could have been different [19]. The number of chewing strokes was set at 35 cycles for standardization.…”

“…It has been shown that the number of chewing cycles needed to swallow varies among people. If tests were performed with chewing until swallowing, the material distribution could also have been different [19].…”

Effects of stage II transport and food bolus sampling methods on the properties of food particles

“…Evaluation of masticatory function is one of the possible examinations to estimate the quality and ability of food intake . Several food bolus sampling methods for the evaluation of masticatory function have been reported: (a) mixing ability test by using chewing gum or wax cubes during mastication, (b) particle analysis methods that retrieve all of a masticated test food (eg, peanuts and nuts), (c) particle analysis methods that retrieve all of a nonedible test material (eg, Optocal and Optosil) and (d) evaluation of content elution (eg, glucose or β‐carotene) using gummy jelly that retrieves all of a test food.…”

“…However, the differences in the actual particle properties between these conditions have not been reported so far. This saliva content argument would also cover the nonedible artificial test material used for the evaluation of masticatory performance, for example Optocal, because it also requires suppression of swallowing during mastication. In addition, the process model of feeding describes mastication and swallowing such that triturated food is propelled through the fauces for bolus formation in the oropharynx during chewing.…”