Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Evaluation of Masticatory Function

Abstract

In the past, fixed prostheses were believed to be more efficient implant-supported devices than removable types for edentulous patients. However, this hypothesis was never properly tested. Therefore, a within-subject crossover clinical trial was designed in which 145 completely edentulous subjects were tested wearing implant-supported mandibular fixed prostheses and long-bar overdentures. Eight subjects received the fixed appliance first and seven the removable type. The patients' perceptions of various characteristics of the implant-supported prostheses were measured after a minimum of two months' adaptation. Mandibular movements and jaw muscle electromyographic activity were recorded while the patients chewed five standard-sized test foods: bread, apple, hard cheese, sausage, and raw carrot. The prostheses were then changed, worn for the same period of adaptation, and the procedures repeated. There were three test sessions per prosthesis, and each included five trials per food. The measurements were repeated three times at one-week intervals. Mastication time was found to be shorter for three foods (bread, cheese, and sausage) when subjects wore the long-bar overdenture. The vertical amplitude of the masticatory strokes was significantly less with the overdenture for all foods except carrot. Cycle duration was significantly longer with the overdenture for sausage and carrot. Contrary to what might be expected, the long-bar overdenture appears to be no less efficient than the fixed prosthesis. Furthermore, these data suggest that patients are capable of adapting their masticatory movements to the characteristics of the two prostheses.

Mastication Improvement After Partial Implant-supported Prosthesis Use

“…Nevertheless, greater bite forces are associated with higher masticatory capacity (Lepley et al, 2010), as confirmed by the FCI results of the present study. Previous studies (Carlsson and Lindquist, 1994;Feine et al, 1994;Geertman et al, 1999;van Kampen et al, 2004) with similar methodologies also agree with these results, although they had evaluated completely edentulous patients. In contrast, Kapur (1991) revealed no difference in mastication between RDP and IFDP wearers; however, this similarity might be due to the chewing platform reduction in IFDP group.…”

Objectively measured compliance during early orthodontic treatment: Do treatment needs have an impact?

“…A study conducted by Helm and Petersen suggested that malocclusion affects the prevalence of oral diseases much less than oral hygiene, which depends only on the patient. [8][9][10] Moreover, studies conducted by Sádovský and BeGole and by Polson show that the prevalence of malocclusion only marginally affects the development of periodontal disease. 11,12 It therefore seems that malocclusion has a greater impact on the patient's psychological well-being and social functioning.…”

The effect of mouth breathing on chewing efficiency

“…This efficiency is evaluated indirectly and directly through various parameters. The rhythm of mastication or jaw movement, the number of chewing strokes, duration of chewing, [4][5][6][7] electromyography (EMG) activity of the masticatory muscle, 8 occlusal contact point and area, 9 and occlusal force 10,11 are evaluated in the indirect method. The methods used to evaluate masticatory efficiency directly evaluate the particulate distribution of a piece of peanut crushed by chewing 12 and the amount of glucide elution from the chewing gum.…”