Reproducibility of a silicone-based test food to masticatory performance evaluation by different sieve methods

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of the condensation silicone Optosil Comfort ® as an artificial test food for masticatory performance evaluation. Twenty dentate subjects with mean age of 23.3 ± 0.7 years were selected. Masticatory performance was evaluated using the simple (MPI), the double (IME) and the multiple sieve methods. Trials were carried out five times by three examiners: three times by the first, and once by the second and third examiners. Friedman's test was used to find the differences among time trials. Reproducibility was determined by the intra-class correlation (ICC) test (α = 0.05). No differences among time trials were found, except for MPI-4 mm (p = 0.022) from the first examiner results. The intra-examiner reproducibility (ICC) of almost all data was high (ICC ≥ 0.92, p < 0.001), being moderate only for MPI-0.50 mm (ICC = 0.89, p < 0.001). The interexaminer reproducibility was high (ICC > 0.93, p < 0.001) for all results. For the multiple sieve method, the average mean of absolute difference from repeated measurements were lower than 1 mm. This trend was observed only from MPI-0.50 to MPI-1.4 for the single sieve method, and from IME-0.71/0.50 to IME-1.40/1.00 for the double sieve method. The results suggest that regardless of the method used, the reproducibility of Optosil Comfort ® is high.

Masticatory function, taste, and salivary flow in young healthy adults

“…Masticatory performance was evaluated Flow stim x unst r = 0.42* P = 0.02 r = 0.60* P = 0.00 r = 0.66* P = 0.00 r = 0.13 P = 0.69 *Pearson/Spearman coefficients P < 0.05*; Flow unst, unstimulated salivary flow rate; Flow stim, stimulated salivary flow rate; t-test/MannWhitney tests comparing males and females for each group: P > 0.05. using the sieve method, which is considered as the standard method for evaluating masticatory function (28). The median X 50 value found in the present study, 3.39 mm, can be considered to be good, in agreement with previous studies (6,7) and similar between genders, as previously reported (6,29). Nevertheless, no distinct findings between genders are clearly stated because some studies have found a better performance for males (17,30).…”

“…Masticatory function can be objectively evaluated using comminution tests, which measure an individual's capacity to break down food into particles in a specific number of chewing cycles by determining the sizes of test food samples that have been chewed (6,7). Another method for verifying masticatory function is subjective tests that measure the subject's own perception of chewing, such as the ability test (8,9).…”

Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance

“…The majority of the studies ( n = 32, 70%) were rated as poor or fair (Abe, Furuya, & Suzuki, ; Asakawa, Fueki, & Ohyama, ; Felicio, Couto, Ferreira, & Mestriner Junior, ; Eberhard et al, ; Eberhard et al, ; Endo et al, ; Fauzza & Lyons, ; Goto et al, ; Halazonetis, Schimmel, Antonarakis, & Christou, ; Hama, Kanazawa, Minakuchi, Uchida, & Sasaki, ; Hama, Kanazawa, Minakuchi, Uchida, & Sasaki, ; Hayakawa, Watanabe, Hirano, & Nagao, ; Huggare, ; Ishikawa, Watanabe, Hayakawa, Minakuchi, & Uchida, ; Kamiyama, Kanazawa, Fujinami, & Minakuchi, ; Khoury‐Ribas, Ayuso‐Montero, Rovira‐Lastra, Peraire, & Martinez‐Gomis, ; Kobayashi, Shiga, Arakawa, & Yokoyama, ; Lujan‐Climent et al, ; Mahmood, Watson, Ogden, & Hawkins, ; Matsui et al, ; Mowlana et al, ; Nokubi et al, ; Ohara, Tsukiyama, Ogawa, & Koyano, ; Prinz, ; Sato et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Shiga, Kobayashi, Arakawa, Yokoyama, & Unno, ; Slagter, Bosman, & Van der Bilt, ; Sugiura et al, ; Wada et al, ; Weijenberg et al, ) mainly to small sample sizes. Only a minority of the studies ( n = 4, 9%) presented sample size calculations (Khoury‐Ribas et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala, Vilanova, Costa, & Farias‐Neto, ; Wada et al, ).…”

“…Methods for assessing masticatory performance may be categorized into three main categories; that is, comminution methods ( n = 21; Felicio et al, ; Eberhard et al, ; Eberhard et al, ; Escudeiro Santos et al, ; Fauzza & Lyons, ; Gunne, ; Huggare, ; Ikebe et al, ; Kapur et al, ; Khoury‐Ribas et al, ; Kobayashi et al, ; Lujan‐Climent et al, ; Mahmood et al, ; Mowlana et al, ; Nokubi et al, ; Ohara et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala et al, ; Shiga et al, ; Slagter et al, ; Woda et al, ), mixing ability methods ( n = 23; Abe et al, ; Asakawa et al, ; Endo et al, ; Halazonetis et al, ; Hama et al, ; Hama et al, ; Hayakawa et al, ; Ishikawa et al, ; Kamiyama et al, ; Liedberg & Owall, ; Matsui et al, ; Prinz, ; Sato et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Schimmel et al, ; Silva et al, ; Speksnijder et al, ; Sugiura et al, ; Vaccaro et al, ; van der Bilt et al, ; van der Bilt et al, ; Wada et al, ; Weijenberg et al, ), or other methods ( n = 2; Goto et al, ; Ikebe et al, ).…”

Which variables should be controlled when measuring the granulometry of a chewed bolus? A systematic review

“…After the C‐test, 42 studies provided mean D 50 values of boluses from Cuttersil–Optosil (Barrera et al, ; Buschang et al, ; Eberhard et al, ; English et al, ; Giannakopoulos et al, ; Harper et al, ; Julien et al, ; Lepley et al, ; Marquezin et al, ; Owens et al, ; Pereira et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala, Farias‐Neto, Campanha, & Garcia, ; Slagter, Bosman, & van der Bilt, ; Slagter, Bosman, van der Glas, & van der Bilt, ; Slagter, Olthoff, Bosman, & Steen, ; Slagter, Olthoff, Steen, & Bosman, ; van der Bilt et al, ; van der Bilt, Olthoff, et al, ; van Kampen et al, ), Optocal (de Lucena et al, ; de Morais Tureli et al, ; Engelen et al, ; Fontijn‐Tekamp et al, ; Geertman et al, ; Okonski et al, ; Sanchez‐Ayala, Goncalves, et al, ; Slagter, Bosman, & van der Bilt, ; Slagter, Bosman, van der Glas, & van der Bilt, ; Trein et al, ; van der Bilt, Burgers, et al, ; van der Bilt & Fontijn‐Tekamp, ; van der Bilt, Mojet, et al, ), Peanut (Fueki et al, , , ; Hutchings et al, ; Kawashima et al, ; Mishellany‐Dutour et al, ; Niwatcharoenchaikul et al, ; Sugiura et al, ; Yoshida et al, ), carrot (Lucas et al, ; Lucas & Luke, ; Mishellany‐Dutour et al, ), Almond (Mowlana et al, ; Wilding, ; Wilding & Lewin, ). These values varied from 0.13 to 10.15 mm.…”