PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate patients' long-term maximum bite force (MBF) after rehabilitation with mandibular implant-supported prosthesis, (2) to assess the influence of facial pattern in MBF, and (3) to evaluate the relation between the dominant chewing side and MBF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were selected. Pre- (T0) and immediate post-rehabilitation (T1) data of MBF were collected. In a follow-up visit 3 to 5 years after rehabilitation (T2), 24 patients participated. The patients were asked about dominant chewing side, and facial pattern was obtained by the initial lateral radiographs. RESULTS: There was statistically significant increase in MBF in T1 - T0 = 5.4 ± 4.3 kgf, T2 - T1 = 5.5 ± 6.0 kgf. There was no statistically significant difference in MBF considering facial type, brachyfacial (T0 = 4.4, T1 = 10.7, T2 = 17.6 kgf), mesofacial (T0 = 4.1, T1 = 9.7, T2 = 16.5 kgf), and dolichofacial (T0 = 3.4, T1 = 7.9, T2 = 12.6 kgf). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant relation between MBF and the dominant chewing side. It can be concluded that mandibular rehabilitation with dental implants improves MBF independent of the facial pattern and dominant chewing side.
PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate patients' long-term maximum bite force (MBF) after rehabilitation with mandibular implant-supported prosthesis, (2) to assess the influence of facial pattern in MBF, and (3) to evaluate the relation between the dominant chewing side and MBF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were selected. Pre- (T0) and immediate post-rehabilitation (T1) data of MBF were collected. In a follow-up visit 3 to 5 years after rehabilitation (T2), 24 patients participated. The patients were asked about dominant chewing side, and facial pattern was obtained by the initial lateral radiographs. RESULTS: There was statistically significant increase in MBF in T1 - T0 = 5.4 ± 4.3 kgf, T2 - T1 = 5.5 ± 6.0 kgf. There was no statistically significant difference in MBF considering facial type, brachyfacial (T0 = 4.4, T1 = 10.7, T2 = 17.6 kgf), mesofacial (T0 = 4.1, T1 = 9.7, T2 = 16.5 kgf), and dolichofacial (T0 = 3.4, T1 = 7.9, T2 = 12.6 kgf). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant relation between MBF and the dominant chewing side. It can be concluded that mandibular rehabilitation with dental implants improves MBF independent of the facial pattern and dominant chewing side.