Masticatory function parameters in patients with removable dental prosthesis

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the masticatory efficiency in patients with a removable dental prosthesis, presenting different systemic, oral and prosthetic states while chewing different foods. The study was conducted on a convenient sample of patients aged 45 and above, with removable prostheses in at least one jaw. Patients were asked to chew samples of digestive biscuits, apple, and carrot, until the sensation of swallowing. The recorded masticatory function parameters were: chewing time, the number of mastication cycles, mean masticatory cycle duration, and chewing frequency. We found out that the masticatory functional parameters registered statistically significant differences according to the chewed food (e.g., generally the highest values were recorded for carrot and lowest for apple), most likely this being in relation to food’s consistency, wetting, and adherence. High positive correlations were found between the chewing time and the number of mastication cycles for all three foods taken into consideration. Higher values for chewing time and number of mastication cycles were found for all foods in patients with complete dentures and overdentures, and while chewing carrot in patients with altered general status and of advanced age. Therefore, it that it takes a different time and number of mastication cycles to complete chewing, in relation to individual and food characteristics, to the systemic, oral and prosthetic patient’s status. The residual teeth number and the type of prosthetic rehabilitation favor the adaptation and improvement of masticatory parameters and can have marker value for masticatory efficiency.

Effect of Antibacterial Silver-Releasing Filler on the Physicochemical Properties of Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) Denture Base Material

“…The wear resistance of acrylate-based materials is usually considered in the context of using denture teeth [101][102][103] or restorative composites [104][105][106]. However, denture base materials should also present sufficient abrasion resistance to avoid wear by food, abrasive denture cleansers [76] or other functional forces created, for example, by the tongue [107,108]. The introduction of inorganic filler allowed to reduce abrasion with increasing S-P concentration, even by 95%, and allowed to gradually change the intensity of the occurrence of scratches, areas of surface delamination, areas indicating plastic deformation and fatigue wear mechanism.…”

Influence of the Printing Angle and Load Direction on Flexure Strength in 3D Printed Materials for Provisional Dental Restorations

“…Mastication is a complex biomechanical process characterized by the crushing and trituration of food by the teeth, helped by the mobilizing muscles of the mandible and some surrounding structures (tongue, lips, cheeks). Teeth play the main role in mastication, a part that is usually taken over by different prosthetic restorations, after tooth loss [ 11 ]. Other important forces that can appear in the oral cavity and exert a strain on teeth and prosthetic restorations are parafunctions, for example, in bruxism.…”

Evaluation of Maximum Biting Force in Two Different Attachment Systems (Bollard vs. Ball and Socket) Retaining Mandibular Overdenture: A Split-mouth Design

“…Retention.Sil was introduced based on its chemical composition on PVS that has three options according to the detachment force desired (200, 400, and 600 gf). Retention.sil 600 was used in this study because it best suited in the later phases after osseointegration and offers a better retention with the abutment which remains almost constant over time with different attachment systems (ball or Locator attachment system) [12], [27].…”

“…The use of resilient silicone lining material for retention resulted in a considerable decrease in the stresses transmitted to the implant and peri-implant bone compared to metal housing [28]. Shock-absorbing ability of soft liner reduces the stress applied to the implants which, in turn, reduces periimplant bone loss [27].…”