OBJECTIVE: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, three-dimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. RESULTS: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 +/- 0.225 sec vs 0.325 +/- 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers.
OBJECTIVE: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, three-dimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. RESULTS: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 +/- 0.225 sec vs 0.325 +/- 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers.
Authors: Casey R Lepley; Gaylord S Throckmorton; Richard F Ceen; Peter H Buschang Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Ramón Fuentes; Alain Arias; María Florencia Lezcano; Diego Saravia; Gisaku Kuramochi; Pablo Navarro; Fernando José Dias Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 3.411