Reproducibility and construct validity of the utrecht mixing ability Test to obtain masticatory performance outcome in patients with condylar mandibular fractures

Self Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to compare masticatory performance and patient reported eating ability of maxillectomy patients with implant‐supported obturators and patients with surgically reconstructed maxillae. Methods This cross‐sectional study was conducted at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada and at Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands. Eleven surgically reconstructed maxillectomy patients have been included at University of Alberta and nine implant‐supported obturator patients at MUMC+. The mixing ability test (MAT) was used to measure masticatory performance. In addition, the oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) was measured with shortened versions of the oral health impact profile (OHIP) questionnaire. Values of the implant‐supported obturator group versus the surgical reconstruction group were compared with independent t‐tests in case of normal distribution, otherwise the Mann‐Whitney U test was applied. Results Patients with reconstructed maxillae and patients with implant‐supported obturator prostheses had similar mean mixing ability indices (18.20 ± 2.38 resp. 18.66 ± 1.37; P = .614). The seven OHRQoL questions also showed no differences in masticatory ability between the two groups. Conclusion With caution, the results of this study seem to confirm earlier results that implant‐supported obturation is a good alternative to surgical reconstruction for all Class II maxillary defects. With both techniques, the masticatory performance is sufficiently restored, with careful planning being highly desirable.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mastication in maxillectomy patients: A comparison between reconstructed maxillae and implant supported obturators: A cross‐sectional study

Buurman

Speksnijder

Groot

et al. 2020

Self Cite

“…9 The Utrecht Mixing Ability Test (MAT) is a test with excellent reliability for patients with history of condylar trauma. 10 Masticatory ability is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) of the mastication process. It reflects the expectations and quality of life of the patients.…”

Section: Backg Rou N Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Masticatory performance is defined as the objective efficiency of the mastication process, which can be measured by the ability to comminute or mix test food 9 . The Utrecht Mixing Ability Test (MAT) is a test with excellent reliability for patients with history of condylar trauma 10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the best of our knowledge, there are no prospective controlled clinical studies that compare OT and CT by both objective functional outcomes, including the MAT, and PROs, including the MFIQ 11 . Since objective functional outcomes and PROs do not necessarily correspond with each other, it is important to consider both 10,12–15 . The similarities and differences between these outcomes may contribute to the discussion of which type of therapy will obtain the most advantageous results, both from a patient and an objective point of view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oral functioning after open versus closed treatment of unilateral condylar neck or base fractures: A two‐centre controlled clinical trial

Weinberg

Rosenberg

Withagen

et al. 2023

Self Cite

Background Oral functioning and rehabilitation in patients after condylar trauma can be measured by objective functional outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes. The similarities or differences between these outcomes may contribute to the decision if open treatment (OT) or closed treatment (CT) will obtain the most advantageous results. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare OT versus CT for unilateral condylar mandibular neck or base fractures in a two‐centre controlled clinical trial by objective functional outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes measured at 6 weeks and 6 months follow‐up. Additionally, these outcomes were compared within each group. Methods Patients were enrolled between January 2017 and November 2019. In one centre, patients received OT by extra‐oral open reduction and internal fixation. In another centre, patients received CT by maxillomandibular fixation. Objective measurements included the mixing ability test (MAT) and mandibular active range of motion (ROM). Patient‐reported outcomes included the mandibular function impairment questionnaire (MFIQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. Independent t‐tests and Mann–Whitney U‐tests were used to determine differences between the treatment groups at 6 weeks and 6 months follow‐up. Paired t‐tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to determine differences within each group. Results Thirty‐three patients were enrolled. No differences were found between the groups treated with OT or CT for MAT, ROM, MFIQ and VAS. Both groups showed functional improvement. Conclusion Good objective functional outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes were achieved with both OT and CT in patients with unilateral condylar mandibular neck or base fractures.

“…The MAT was specifically developed for patients with HNC, 7,12,14 consisting of a relatively soft material (wax), to make sure patients with compromised mastication would still be able to perform this test. This test has proven to be sensitive in measuring mastication in adults with dental deficits and children with cerebral palsy 15,16 . However, reliability of this test has not been evaluated in patients with HNC yet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the mixing ability test testing masticatory performance in patients with head and neck cancer and healthy controls

Vermaire

Weinberg

Raaijmakers

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Background Treatment of patients with head and neck cancer can result in disrupted mastication. To measure masticatory performance in people with compromised mastication, the mixing ability test (MAT) was developed. Objective In this study, the reliability of the MAT was evaluated in patients with head and neck cancer and healthy controls. Methods Thirty‐four patients with head and neck cancer and 42 healthy controls performed the MAT twice on the same day. To assess reliability, the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC 2,1 ), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. Results A good (ICC = 0.886) and moderate correlation (ICC = 0.525) were found for patients and healthy controls, respectively. Patients had a worse mixing ability (mean = 19.12, SD = 4.56) in comparison with healthy controls (mean = 16.42, SD = 2.04). The SEM was 0.76 in patients and 1.45 in healthy controls, with a SDC of 2.12 and 4.02, respectively. The LoA was −4.46 to 4.42 in patients and −3.65 to 4.59 in healthy controls. Conclusion The MAT has a good reliability in patients with head and neck cancer and a moderate reliability in healthy controls.