AIMS: To examine patient-centred clinical outcomes for objective masticatory efficiency (OME) and subjective quality of masticatory function (QMF) among periodontitis patients using test methods easily applicable in daily practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (n = 224). Outcomes included OME and QMF related to periodontitis characteristics. RESULTS: OME and QMF were associated (x2 = 0.252, p = 0.037) and showed highest values in stage 4 according to the new classification of periodontal disease. There were correlations particularly in stage 2 between OME and number of teeth (x2 = -0.317, p < 0.001), Quigley-Hein Index (x2 = 0.152, p = 0.031), attachment level (x2 = 0.268, p < 0.001), probing depths (x2 = 0.185, p = 0.006), tooth mobility (x2 = 0.147, p = 0.031) and functional occlusal units (x2 = -0.423, p < 0.001) but not bleeding on probing. A trend existed between QMF and number of teeth (x2 = -0.237, p = 0.050) and functional occlusal units (x2 = 0.238, p = 0.058), but not other periodontal findings. CONCLUSIONS: OME and QMF values represent each other and are highest in stage 4. Periodontitis findings influence masticatory efficiency particularly in stage 2, but gingival inflammation does not. Number of teeth and functional occlusal units are associated with QMF, while periodontitis findings have less impact. An assessment of mastication should be routinely included in the diagnosis of periodontitis patients in all stages.
AIMS: To examine patient-centred clinical outcomes for objective masticatory efficiency (OME) and subjective quality of masticatory function (QMF) among periodontitispatients using test methods easily applicable in daily practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (n = 224). Outcomes included OME and QMF related to periodontitis characteristics. RESULTS: OME and QMF were associated (x2 = 0.252, p = 0.037) and showed highest values in stage 4 according to the new classification of periodontal disease. There were correlations particularly in stage 2 between OME and number of teeth (x2 = -0.317, p < 0.001), Quigley-Hein Index (x2 = 0.152, p = 0.031), attachment level (x2 = 0.268, p < 0.001), probing depths (x2 = 0.185, p = 0.006), tooth mobility (x2 = 0.147, p = 0.031) and functional occlusal units (x2 = -0.423, p < 0.001) but not bleeding on probing. A trend existed between QMF and number of teeth (x2 = -0.237, p = 0.050) and functional occlusal units (x2 = 0.238, p = 0.058), but not other periodontal findings. CONCLUSIONS: OME and QMF values represent each other and are highest in stage 4. Periodontitis findings influence masticatory efficiency particularly in stage 2, but gingival inflammation does not. Number of teeth and functional occlusal units are associated with QMF, while periodontitis findings have less impact. An assessment of mastication should be routinely included in the diagnosis of periodontitispatients in all stages.