The influence of partial implant-supported restorations on chewing side preference

Abstract

This study aimed at determining whether the individual's chewing side preference is affected by local effects, produced by the presence of implant-supported restorations. The test group included 81 patients with partial implant-supported prosthesis. The control group included 108 subjects with no implants. All subjects went through a series of laterality tests for chewing and tasks (hand, foot, eye and ear) side preference. The preferred chewing side (PCS) was determined by observing the first stroke of the chewing cycle during chewing a gum. A positive and significant correlation between the chewing side preference and the subject's sidedness during the different tasks was examined, by performing four Phi correlation tests for: chewing and handedness(r = 0·54; P < 0·001); chewing and footedness (r = 0·49; P < 0·001); chewing and eyedness (r = 0·65; P < 0·001) and chewing and earedness (r = 0·66, P < 0·001). Of the subjects, 78·3% preferred the right side for chewing, 19·1% preferred the left and 2·1% had no clear side preference. There was no statistical difference in chewing side preference distribution between genders. The distribution of chewing side preference was not significantly affected by the location of missing teeth or implants. In conclusion, implant placement will not affect PCS. Therefore, information on chewing side preference should be part of the routine preoperative examination for implant-supported restorations to provide a better treatment plan in those cases that the implant-supported restoration will be on the PCS.

A comparison of methods used to determine chewing side preference in deciduous, mixed and permanent dentitions

“…It was expected, therefore, that they would have difficulty moving a bolus from one side of the mouth to the other and would therefore be more likely to chew on one side, and this preference tends to disappear with age [4,19,20]. The prevalence of CSP in subjects with permanent teeth (76%) is similar to the findings of Christensen and Radue [1], Pond et al [2], Kazazoglu et al [3], Varela et al [7], Nissan et al [17], Reinhardt et al [12], Martinez-Gomis et al [8] , Nissan et al [18], who reported prevalence of CSP, respectively: 68%, 77.8%, 88%, 88.4%, 97.4%, 78%, 63.24% and 97.9%.…”

“…Hoogmartens and Caubergh [16] observed that 56.25% of subjects (permanent dentition) realized the first chewing cycle on the right side, 31.25% on the left side and 12.5% had rates equal to the left and right sides. Nissan et al [17] and Nissan et al [18] observed that, respectively, 73% and 78.3% of the subjects had first cycle masticatory on the right side and 27% and 19.1% on the left side. Our results corroborate the results of these researches, because there is higher prevalence of preferred right side in the first chewing cycle, regardless of the dentition evaluated.…”

“…The results of this study confirmed the findings of Kazazoglu et al [3], who also noted a strong relationship between the first chewing cycle and chewing side preference, which was coincident in 75% of the population. Additionally, Nissan et al [17] (2004) and Nissan et al [18] (2011) considered that first chewing cycle determines presence of the CSP.…”

Is the side with the best masticatory performance selected for chewing?

“…they have a preferred chewing side (PCS). [5][6][7] The proportion of children or adults with a PCS ranges from 45% to 98%, [7][8][9][10][11] and there is no agreement on whether the right side is used more frequently than the left side. [8][9][10]12,13 Furthermore, it still unknown whether the PCS is centrally determined or related to peripheral factors, nor which peripheral factors are most closely related to the PCS.…”

“…[8][9][10]12,13 Furthermore, it still unknown whether the PCS is centrally determined or related to peripheral factors, nor which peripheral factors are most closely related to the PCS. 7,10,11 Although natural foods can be used to assess masticatory function, artificial test food can be easily standardised and its physical properties remain the same over time. 14 Consequently, the use of artificial test foods such as silicon impression material is Page 5 of 20 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 5 reliable.…”