Subjective and objective evaluation of masticatory function in patients with bimaxillary implant‐supported prostheses

Abstract

Background: People perform poorly in masticatory function tests despite wellfunctioning prostheses. However, it is unclear whether there is an agreement between subjective and objective measures of mastication. Objectives:To investigate the association between subjective and objective measures of masticatory function in patients with bimaxillary implant-supported prostheses.Materials and Methods: An experimental group (n = 25, age = 70.6 ± 7.5 years, eight women) with bimaxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses and a control group (n = 25, age = 69.0 ± 5.3, 13 women) with natural dentition were recruited. The participants in the experimental group were included if they had been using the prosthesis for at least a year and had no obvious complaints with their prostheses. The control group was people with natural dentition and without any prostheses or complaints related to the masticatory system. The masticatory function was evaluated objectively with food comminution and mixing ability tests, and subjectively with jaw function limitation scale (JLFS) and oral health impact profile (OHIP). Results:The experimental group performed poorly in both objective tests (p < .001).However, there was no significant differences between the two groups in total JFLS (p = .114) and OHIP (p = .312) scores. Though, there were certain positive correlations between the food comminution test and JFLS subdomains in the control group, and a positive correlation between food comminution test and specific subdomains of OHIP in the experimental group indicating poor correlation between the subjective and objective measures. Conclusion:Although patients with implant prostheses show poor masticatory performance, there is no agreement in the objective and subjective measures of mastication.

Evaluation of Marginal Bone Height Changes in implant-supported mandibular overdenture retained with Two Different Materials of Bar Attachments.

“…This finding may be due to many reasons; the gradual rise in the maximum bite force may be due to the neuromuscular co-ordination and adaptability of the patient to the prostheses upon time; however it was reported that implant supported prostheses may restore the oral function successfully, both subjective and objective indicators of chewing ability score better compared to conventional complete dentures; more over the refined stability and retention provided by the implants may have lowered patient's fear and promoted them to exert higher biting force. (37)(38)(39)(40) Longitudinal study compared the maximum biting forces and the level of activity of the muscles of mastication two months after mandibular implants placement for denture stabilization. This study reported marked rise in bite force value from 41% to 58% bilaterally in molar area after the implants supporting.…”

Ageing-Oriented Prosthetic Treatment Plan: A Case Report

“…Zitzmann et al compared patients' perspectives when fixed or removable implant-supported restorations were used in the edentulous maxilla, finding no statistically significant difference in the patient's denture assessments between the two groups [37]. With regard to masticatory performance, this was significantly reduced when implant-supported FDPs were compared with natural dentition [38]. However, when the color-mixing analysis test was used to compare the masticatory performance of conventional complete dentures and implant-supported rehabilitations, the implantsupported rehabilitations performed better; nevertheless, there are no data supporting the greater efficacy of the fixed over removable implant-supported prostheses [39].…”

Assessment of orofacial muscle strength, masticatory and swallowing function in children indicated for orthodontic treatment.

“…The hard viscoelastic food comminution test has shown promising results to evaluate masticatory performance in older people with dental implants [15,46]. The hard viscoelastic test food used in the current study is perceived to be more di cult and complex to chew compared to other (plastic) foods, as they require more chewing and more muscle effort [22] compared to other test foods.…”

“…It was shown that chewing parameters such as maximum bite force [10,11], jaw muscle activity [9], and jaw kinematics gradually alter with the development of the orofacial structures and are mostly impacted by the dentition state [12,13]. Further, it has been shown that while the jaw sensorimotor regulation and chewing function develop gradually with age, a transition to the adult-type of masticatory behavior occurs in the late-mixed to early-permanent dentition stages in children with normal occlusion [7][8][9][13][14][15].…”