Masticatory index for patients wearing dental prosthesis as alternative to conventional masticatory ability measures.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were: 1) to develop a masticatory index for evaluating masticatory ability in patients wearing a dental prosthesis, including complete dentures (CD), removable partial denture (RPD), and fixed partial denture (FPD), 2) to test the reliability and validity of the index, and 3) to determine whether the index better reflected patients' masticatory ability compared with conventional subjective and objective measures.
METHODS: The present cross-sectional study consisted of 2 phases: 1) developing the Chulalongkorn University masticatory index (CUMI) consisting of 20 food items in 5 masticatory difficulty grades using a 3-point Likert scale, and 2) application of the CUMI in 110 patients wearing a dental prosthesis, including CD, RPD, and FPD (control group). The CUMI test-retest reliability was reevaluated 2 weeks later. The convergent validity was compared with objective masticatory performance evaluated with a standard peanut chewing test, and subjective eating impacts evaluated by the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances Index. Oral and denture status were determined clinically. The associations between CUMI score, peanut particle size, and eating impact score was identified using Spearman's correlation coefficient. To evaluate discriminant validity, the associations between masticatory ability measurements and oral and denture status were analyzed using regression analyses.
RESULTS: The CUMI's Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.89 and 0.95, respectively. The convergent validity was shown by significant associations between the increased CUMI score, smaller peanut particle size and decreased eating impact score. Multivariable analyses found that the CUMI score, peanut particle size, and percentage of having an eating impact were significantly associated with the number of remaining teeth and posterior occluding pairs, and type and quality of dental prosthesis. However, the CUMI demonstrated better discriminant validity because significant dose-response relationships were found only between the decreased CUMI score and increased tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality. Adjusted R2 values of the CUMI models were the highest, followed by those of peanut particle size and eating impact.
CONCLUSION: CUMI is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate masticatory ability of patients wearing a dental prosthesis, including CD, RPD, and FPD. Due to a better discriminant validity, the CUMI better reflects masticatory ability of patients compared with conventional subjective and objective masticatory ability measures.

Introduction

Tooth loss commonly impairs masticatory ability because it alters the types of food selection and limits dietary variety, leading to poor nutritional status [1, 2]. Poor nutrition is a risk for various comorbidity conditions, such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality [3-5]. To improve the masticatory ability and quality of life of patients with tooth loss, a dental prosthesis is always the first choice of treatment to replace missing teeth [6, 7]. However, some patients have experienced impaired masticatory ability and quality of life after a period of denture use [6-8]. Therefore, evaluating the masticatory ability of patients wearing dental prosthesis is important for monitoring and maintaining their oral health and quality of life. In this context, a dental prosthesis refers to complete denture (CD), removable partial denture (RPD), and fixed partial denture (FPD).

Several objective and subjective measures have been used to evaluate the masticatory ability of dental patients and those wearing a dental prosthesis [8-10]. The objective measure requires a person to masticate a test food, whereas the subjective measure reflects persons’ perception of their ability to eat or chew food [9, 11]. The objective measures include a color-changeable chewing gum [12, 13], number of chewing stroke prior to swallowing [14], and the size of comminuted food particles [8, 10]. However, the objective measures require special equipment and time-consuming to perform [9, 11]. The subjective measures include satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) [7-9]. Although the subjective measures require less chair-time and resources, they cannot ensure whether a person can chew a variety of food. Using both subjective and objective measures may better reflect the true masticatory ability of a person than using either of them [9, 11]. However, this may not be practical in routine clinical practice and population-based study. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a single measure to evaluate the masticatory ability of a population to save time, and human and financial resources.

A food questionnaire is one subjective masticatory ability measure; however, it also objectively identifies whether a person can masticate a variety of food. A food questionnaire allows patients to rate the difficulty level in eating food items that vary in hardness and toughness. Several food questionnaire versions have been developed across countries, such as Japan [13, 15], Taiwan [16], Hong Kong [13], and Vietnam [17]. The types and numbers of food items vary depending on the culture and ethnicity. Previously developed food questionnaires have been used specifically with older people [13, 18], partially edentulous people, and complete denture wearers [19-21]. Newly developed questionnaires are commonly validated with objective [13, 19, 20], and subjective masticatory ability measures [13, 15, 21]. However, it has not been determined whether the newly-developed masticatory index better reflects patients’ masticatory ability compared with conventional subjective and objective measures.

The objectives of this study were 1) to develop a masticatory index based on a food questionnaire to evaluate the masticatory ability of patients wearing a dental prosthesis, including CD, RPD, and FPD (control group), 2) to test the reliability and validity of the newly-developed masticatory index using subjective eating impacts and objective masticatory performance as references, and 3) to determine whether the index better reflected patients’ masticatory ability compared with conventional subjective and objective measures.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

The present cross-sectional study consisted of two phases. First, a food questionnaire, called the Chulalongkorn University masticatory index (CUMI) was developed. Second, the reliability and validity of the CUMI were determined using objective masticatory performance, and subjective oral impacts on daily performances focusing eating impact as references. The study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry (HREC-DCU 2019–081).

The participants were patients who had received conventional prosthodontic treatment from dental students at the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University. The patients had been wearing CD, RPD, or FPD for at least 6 months. A FPD was defined as when at least 26 remaining natural teeth was present. The exclusion criteria were patients who received full mouth rehabilitation (more than 5 units of fixed crowns and/or bridges), had neuromuscular or psychological disorders, or was allergic to peanuts. The participants signed an informed consent prior to participation.

Phase I: Developing the CU-masticatory index

Initially, 40 patients (37.5% CD, 37.5% RPD, and 10% FPD and dentate) were asked about the typical food types they had eaten during the past week, and the food types they had difficulty in chewing or would like to eat but could not chew at all. Then, the additional 20 patients were interviewed. We found that the most regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods obtained from 40 and 60 patients were similar. Therefore, the Phase I comprised a total of 60 patients (40% CD, 40% RPD, 10% FPD and 10% dentate individuals) with mean age (±s.d.) = 67.7 ±8.6 years. A higher proportion of removable dentures was included because they reported a greater variety of food types and textures compared with the FPD and dentate individuals. A greater variety of food type was due to the variation in denture quality and oral status among the RPD and CD wearers. Then, 80 food types were obtained from the interview.

From all food types, the 14 most frequently-consumed food items covering 4 food groups were selected and included in the questionnaire as follows:

Protein-rich foods: minced pork, boiled egg, omelet, fried chicken, and crispy pork

Carbohydrate-rich foods: steamed rice, noodles, porridge, and sticky rice

Vegetables: boiled cabbage and stir-fried kale

Fruits: orange, banana, and guava

The 6 most common foods that the patients had difficulty in chewing or would like to eat but could not chew at all were: stir-fried morning glory, dried shrimp, stir-fried water mimosa, rice cake, kalamare (Thai caramel-like toffee), and grains or seeds, such as sesame seed, ground peanut, and roasted rice powder. Therefore, the CUMI comprised 20 food types covering both frequently-consumed and rarely-consumed foods.

Phase II: CUMI Application

One-hundred and ten participants who did not participate phase I enrolled in phase II. A test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by re-interviewing 20 participants to determine their masticatory score on two occasions with a 2-week interval. The questionnaire validity was tested using both subjective and objective measures of masticatory ability, which were eating impact and a standard peanut mastication, respectively, as a reference.

CUMI assessment

The participants rated the level of difficulty in eating/chewing the 20-food items using a 3-point Likert scale: can chew well (2), can chew with difficulty (1), and cannot chew at all (0). Any food item that the patient had never eaten or could not remember, was recorded as a missing item and was not included in the score calculation. The masticatory difficulty score of each food item, ranging from 0–2, was determined from the average score obtained from all participants. Ranging from the highest to the lowest level of masticatory difficulty score, 20 food items were categorized into 5 masticatory difficulty grades with 4 food items in each grade. The masticatory difficulty score of each grade was calculated from the average score of 4 food items in that grade. Because the masticatory difficulty ratio of grade I was l.00, the masticatory difficulty ratio of the other grades was calculated as the masticatory difficulty score of grade I divided by that grade. The CU-masticatory score of each participant was calculated using the following formula [20]: The food item that a patient had never eaten or could not remember was not included in the score calculation.

In addition to the participants’ responses, three experts in prosthodontics scored the masticatory difficulty grade of each food item, and the values were compared to those obtained from all participants. Weighted Kappa scores ranging from 0.75–0.87 were calculated, indicating 90–95% agreement between the experts and participants.

Subjective masticatory ability: OHRQoL assessment

The OHRQoL was assessed by a face-to-face interview using the Thai version of oral impacts on daily performances (Thai-OIDP) which has been validated in a Thai population [22, 23]. The measurement focuses on oral conditions that affect the ability to carry out eight daily activities within three performances: physical (eating, speaking/pronouncing clearly, cleaning teeth/denture/oral cavity), psychological (sleeping/relaxing, smiling/laughing/showing teeth without embarrassment, maintaining usual emotion), and social (performing work, and contacting people). The participants rated the frequency and severity of the impact. The participant was classified as had no oral impact (OIDP score = 0) or had an oral impact (OIDP score > 0), as well as no eating impact (eating impact score = 0) and had an eating impact (eating impact score > 0).

Objective masticatory ability: Masticatory performance assessment

Masticatory performance was assessed using a multiple sieve method of peanut mastication [24, 25]. The patients sat in an upright position and masticated 3 g of roasted peanuts for 20 strokes in triplicate. The comminuted peanut particles were sieved using 12 standard test sieves that were placed on a vibrating sieve shaker at a frequency of 70 Hz for 3 min. The peanut particles that did not pass through the test sieves were collected and calculated to determine the median peanut particle size. The median peanut particle size was defined as the sieve diameter through which 50% of the comminuted particles passed: the smaller median particle size, the better masticatory performance.

Covariate assessment

The oral and denture status of the patients were examined. The oral status comprised the number of remaining natural teeth (less than 20, or at least 20 teeth), posterior occluding pairs (less than 4, or at least 4 occluding pairs), and edentulous condition (dentate, partial edentulism, and complete edentulism). The participants were categorized as dentate when at least 26 natural teeth remained.

The type of dental prosthesis was categorized into 3 types; CD, RPD and FPD. When more than one type of dental prosthesis was present, it was categorized as the type with the greater severity of tooth loss. The FPD group, dentate individuals who had at least 26 remaining natural teeth, was served as a positive control. The clinical quality of the removable dentures based on retention and stability was examined by one calibrated prosthodontist. Retention and stability were evaluated because an ill-fitting denture is the most common problem for removable denture wearers [26, 27]. Retention and stability of CDs were evaluated according to the CU-modified Kapur criteria [24], while those of the RPDs were evaluated based on criteria modified from the CU-modified Kapur criteria and NHANES III (S1 and S2 Tables) [26]. Retention and stability levels were scored using 4-point and 3-point Likert scales, respectively. The maxillary and mandibular denture quality was categorized as acceptable or unacceptable. The clinical quality of the denture was considered as acceptable when the retention and stability of both maxillary and mandibular denture were acceptable. If either or both dentures were unacceptable, the overall denture quality was considered unacceptable [24]. The intra-examiner reliability in denture quality evaluation was examined in 20 denture wearers with a 2-week interval. The Kappa score ranged from 0.90–0.95, which indicated excellent intra-examiner reliability.

Power analysis

The study power was calculated using G*Power version 3.1.9.2 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) based on the hypothesis that the CUMI score would be significantly different between the three types of dental prosthesis. Our results indicated that the CUMI score (mean ±sd.) of the participants wearing FPD (n1 = 19), RPD (n2 = 56) and CD (n3 = 35) were 98.1% (±4.5), 82.2% (±12.3) and 63.7% (±17.0), respectively. Using the F test for analysis of variance (ANOVA), a 99.9% power was calculated at α = 0.05.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using STATA version 13.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) at a 5% significance level. Descriptive analyses were calculated as mean (±sd.) and percentage distribution (%). The internal consistency of the CUMI was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the test-retest reliability was analyzed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The convergent validity of the CUMI was analyzed with Pearson’s correlation coefficient using peanut particle size and an eating impact score as references. The discriminant validity of the CUMI score, peanut particle size, and oral impact was determined by evaluating their associations with oral- and denture-related variables using bivariate and multivariable analyses. For bivariate analysis, differences in the CUMI score and peanut particle size between each variable were determined using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc comparison test, whereas differences in the percentage of overall and eating impacts was determined using the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Adjusting for covariates, the association between oral and denture status, and the CUMI score, peanut particle size, and having an eating impact were analyzed using multiple linear and logistic regression. In addition, the percentage of food items that the participants reported difficulty or inability to chew was determined between different conditions of eating impacts, as well as types and qualities of the dental prosthesis.

Results

The developed CUMI consisted of 20 food items in 5 masticatory difficulty grades, ranging from grade I (most easily chewed) to grade V (most difficult to chew) (Table 1). The participants attending phase II had a mean age of 65.0 ±8.9 years (range 37–85 years). Approximately 32%, 51% and 17% of the participants wore CD, RPD, and FPD, respectively. Calculated from the average masticatory difficulty score of all participants, the masticatory difficulty ratio of each grade was obtained. The CUMI score of each participant was determined using the formula: CUMI score (%) = (a + 1.02b + 1.21c + 1.45d + 1.61e)/12.58 ×100%; when the average masticatory difficulty score of the food grade I–IV of each person were a, b, c, d, and e, respectively. The food item that a patient had never eaten or could not remember was not calculated: the higher CUMI score, the higher masticatory ability.

Table 1

CUMI evaluation.

Masticatory difficulty grade	Food items	Masticatory difficulty score of each food item: mean (±sd.)	Masticatory difficulty score of each food grade: mean (±sd.)	Masticatory difficulty ratio	Average masticatory difficulty point†
I	Porridge	1.99 (±0.10)	1.98 (±0.12)	1.00	a
	Omelet	1.98 (±0.13)
	Boiled cabbage	1.98 (±0.13)
	Banana	1.98 (±0.13)
II	Steamed rice	1.95 (±0.21)	1.95 (±0.22)	1.02	b
	Boiled egg	1.95 (±0.21)
	Noodle	1.94 (±0.23)
	Minced pork	1.94 (±0.23)
III	Orange	1.80 (±0.42)	1.63 (±0.53)	1.21	c
	Fried chicken	1.66 (±0.53)
	Sticky rice	1.60 (±0.56)
	Stir-fried morning glory	1.46 (±0.62)
IV	Stir-fried kale	1.41 (±0.67)	1.37 (±0.67)	1.45	d
	Grains or seeds	1.37 (±0.68)
	Dried shrimp	1.36 (±0.65)
	Guava	1.34 (±0.70)
V	Crispy pork	1.31 (±0.62)	1.23 (±0.68)	1.61	e
	Rice cake	1.31 (±0.67)
	Stir-fried water mimosa	1.17 (±0.70)
	Kalamare	1.14 (±0.74)

†Average masticatory difficulty point was calculated from average score of 4 food items in that grade, excluding the food item which had never been eaten or could not be remembered.

The internal consistency of the CUMI based on the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.89. The test-retest reliability of the CUMI based on ICC value was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.88–0.98). The convergent validity based on the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) revealed statistically significant correlations between a higher CUMI score and smaller peanut particle size, and lower eating impact score (r = -0.66 and -0.57, respectively (p < 0.001)).

The discriminant validity of the CUMI score, peanut particle size, and eating impacts was determined by comparing the outcomes of the participants with different oral and denture status. Univariate analyses revealed that decreased CUMI score and increased peanut particle size were found in the older age groups (Table 2). The CUMI score, peanut particle size and percentage of having eating impacts were significantly different between oral and denture status.

Table 2

Masticatory ability of the participants.

Variables	Distribution	CUMI score (%):	Median peanut particle size (mm):	Having oral impact (%):
	(%)	mean (±sd.)	mean (±sd.)	Overall oral impact	Eating impact
All participants		79.1 (±17.7)	2.3 (±0.9)	49.1	45.5
Age (years): < 60	27.3	88.9 (±11.3)**	1.8 (±0.6)*	24.1	20.0
60–69	35.4	80.2 (±17.7)	2.1 (±0.7)	27.8	28.0
> 69	37.3	70.8 (±17.8)	2.8 (±1.1)	48.1	52.0
Sex: Male	40.0	76.4 (±18.8)	2.4 (±1.1)	40.7	44.0
Female	60.0	80,8 (±16.8)	2.2 (±0.8)	59.3	56.0
Oral status:
• Number of remaining teeth and occluding pairs:
• ≥ 20 teeth and ≥ 4 occluding pairs	39.1	93.0 (±8.9)**	1.8 (±0.6)*	22.2*	20.0*
• ≥ 20 teeth and < 4 occluding pairs	7.3	82.3 (±12.1)	2.1 (±0.5)	5.6	6.0
• < 20 teeth	53.6	68.5 (±16.0)	2.7 (±1.1)	72.2	74.0
• Edentulous condition:
• Dentate	17.3	98.1 (±4.5)**	1.6 (±0.3)*	7.4*	6.0*
• Partial edentulism	50.9	82.2 (±12.3)	2.1 (±0.6)	48.2	46.0
• Complete edentulism	31.8	63.7 (±17.0)	3.1 (±1.2)	44.4	48.0
Type and quality of dental prosthesis:
• Fixed partial denture	17.3	98.1 (±4.5)**	1.6 (±0.3)*	7.4*	6.0*
• Removable partial denture: acceptable quality	31.8	85.0 (±11.4)	2.0 (±0.5)	20.3	16.0
unacceptable quality	19.1	77.5 (±12.5)	2.3 (±0.7)	27.8	30.0
• Complete denture: acceptable quality	15.4	68.6 (±16.4)	2.6 (±1.0)	13.0	14.0
unacceptable quality	16.4	59.0 (±16.6)	3.5 (±1.2)	31.5	34.0

*Significant difference at **p < 0.001, *p < 0.05.

The multiple regression analyses of each masticatory ability measure were split into two models because there was a collinearity between tooth loss status and type of dental prosthesis (Table 3). After adjusting for age and sex, there was a significant dose-response relationship between an increased CUMI score, greater tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality. Meanwhile, a dose-response relationship was not shown in the peanut particle size and eating impact models. For type of dental prosthesis model, the peanut particle size was significantly different only between FPD and CD, whereas the oral impact was different only between the acceptable and unacceptable denture quality. For both oral and denture status models, the adjusted R2 values of the CUMI outcome was the highest, followed by those of peanut particle size and eating impacts. Therefore, the CUMI demonstrated better discriminant validity than the peanut particle size and eating impact models.

Table 3

Multivariable analyses of masticatory ability measures and relating variables.

Variables	CUMI score (adjusted β)		Peanut particle size (mm) (adjusted β)		Having eating impact (adjusted OR)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Number of remaining teeth and occluding pairs:
• ≥ 20 teeth and ≥ 4 occluding pairs	0 (ref)		0 (ref)		(ref)
• ≥ 20 teeth and < 4 occluding pairs	-11.6 (-21.7, -1.4)*	-	0.4 (-0.3, 1.0)	-	• (0.1, 2.0)	-
• < 20 teeth	-21.8 (-27.7, -15.9)*		0.6 (0.3, 1.0)*		0.2 (0.1, 0.6)*
Type and quality of dental prosthesis:
• Fixed partial denture		0 (ref)		0 (ref)		(ref)
• Removable partial denture:
• acceptable quality		-11.9 (-19.3, -4.4)*		0.3 (-0.2, 0.7)		• (0.4, 8.0)
• unacceptable quality	-	-17.6 (-26.9, -8.3)*	-	0.4 (-0.1, 1.0)	-	15.7 (2.5, 100.0)*
• Complete denture:
• acceptable quality		-27.1 (-36.7, -17.4)*		0.8 (0.2, 1.4)*		• (0.7, 32.0)
• unacceptable quality		-37.1 (-46.4, -27.7)*		1.7 (1.1, 2.3)*		116.3 (55.9, 152.0)*
Adjusted R2	43.7%	48.1%	23.4%	37.3%	12.6%	28.3%

Among the participants who had no eating impact, approximately 30–50% of them reported difficulty or inability to chew food items in grade IV and grade V, and stir-fried morning glory in grade III (Table 4). The participants with an eating impact were more likely to report difficulty or inability to chew food items in grade III–V, compared with those without an eating impact. Difficulty or inability to chew food items in grade III–V was most frequently reported in participants wearing CDs, followed by RPDs and FPDs, and more frequently reported in participants with an unacceptable denture quality compared with those wearing an acceptable quality denture.

Table 4

Food items with chewing difficulty or could not be chewed according to different status of eating impact, type and quality of dental prosthesis.

Food items with chewing difficulty or	Eating impact		Type and quality of dental prosthesis
could not be chewed	Presence	Absence	CD		RPD		FPD
	(n = 50)	(n = 60)	Unacceptable (n = 18)	Acceptable (n = 17)	Unacceptable (n = 21)	Acceptable (n = 35)	(n = 19)
Grade I: Porridge	2.1	0.0	5.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Omelet	4.0	0.0	11.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Boiled cabbage	0.0	0.0	11.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Banana	4.0	0.0	11.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Grade II: Steamed rice	10.0	0.0	27.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Boiled egg	4.0	3.3	16.7	5.9	4.8	0.0	0.0
Noodle	8.2	3.3	11.1	6.2	14.3	0.0	0.0
Minced pork	10.0	1.7	11.1	11.8	4.8	2.9	0.0
Grade III: Orange	36.0	5.0	44.4	23.5	38.1	0.0	0.0
Fried chicken	52.1	15.0	77.8	52.9	36.8	11.4	0.0
Sticky rice	53.1	22.4	66.7	56.2	42.1	28.6	0.0
Stir-fried morning glory	64.0	33.3	77.8	76.5	47.6	40.0	5.3
Grade IV: Stir-fried kale	69.4	31.7	94.1	64.7	57.1	34.3	10.5
Grains or seeds	74.0	31.6	88.9	82.3	65.0	36.4	16.7
Dried shrimp	76.6	35.7	93.7	78.6	75.0	41.2	5.3
Guava	77.6	32.2	94.4	75.0	57.1	47.1	0.0
Grade V: Crispy pork	79.2	44.8	88.9	81.2	73.7	51.4	16.7
Rice cake	80.4	38.6	88.2	82.3	73.7	46.9	5.6
Stir-fried water mimosa	83.0	51.7	100.0	100.0	68.4	62.9	10.5
Kalamare	79.6	51.1	93.3	87.5	72.2	64.0	11.8

Discussion

This study developed a single masticatory index, called the CUMI, to evaluate the masticatory ability of patients with different oral and denture status. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were identified. A convergent validity was verified as reference to the conventional subjective eating impact and objective masticatory performance. Since significant dose-response relationships were found only between an increased CUMI score and greater tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality, the CUMI demonstrated better discriminant validity than the conventional subjective and objective measures. The results indicated that the developed masticatory index better reflected patients’ masticatory ability compared with conventional subjective and objective measures.

The food items in previously developed questionnaires were commonly selected from regularly consumed food [16], or shorten from multiple food items or an original food book [13, 15]. The food items were selected by a focus group of dentists [17], or together with patient participation [28]. However, the CUMI comprises both regularly- and rarely-consumed food reported by the patients alone. The inclusion of food items with different chewing difficulty levels was to improve the discriminant validity in differentiating severities of tooth loss and denture status. The different masticatory difficulty grades were verified between dental experts and patients. However, we did not use any specific instrument to assess masticatory difficulty level of each food item because it includes mixed properties of the food such as hardness, toughness, stickiness, slipperiness, and fibrousness. Therefore, no specific instrument can comprehensively determine these properties and verify the outcome. Similar to a previous food questionnaire in CD wearers [20], the CUMI score was calculated from a weighted score of each food grade; the more toughness and hardness, the greater values were weighed. The food items that the patients had never eaten or could not remember eating were not included in the score calculation to reduce bias from patients’ preference. In addition, the food items cover the four basic macronutrients for further use in evaluating nutritional status.

The convergent validity of the CUMI was evaluated using both subjective eating impact and objective masticatory performance as references, and the moderate correlations between the CUMI score and the referent measures were found. The results indicate that the CUMI could be used for evaluating masticatory ability in patients wearing a dental prosthesis in comparison with the conventional subjective and objective measures. The OHRQoL was used as subjective outcome because it is a cross-cultural validated tool, thus, the findings can be generalized to other populations [29]. Our results demonstrated a stronger association between the CUMI and eating impact score (r = -0.57), compared with that of previously developed food questionnaires and the Oral Health Impacts Profile-14 (OHIP-14, r = -0.46) [18], and the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI, r = 0.48) [15]. This difference might be because the present study focused on an eating impact rather than examining the overall OHRQoL, and the OIDP focuses on the ultimate impact, rather than pain and discomfort, that might not affect chewing ability [22]. Although multiple sieve method of peanut mastication is worldwide used, it consumes more time and resources to perform than the subjective measures. The whole evaluation process takes 2 days to obtain the result since collecting the comminuted peanut particles from patients, drying the comminuted peanut particles overnight, and then, analyzing the peanut particle size on the next day. Therefore, peanut mastication might be practical only in clinical study or research.

From the multivariable analysis models, the discriminant validity of the CUMI in identifying different oral and denture status was better than those of eating impacts and masticatory performance. The explanation is that there was a significant dose-response relationship between increased CUMI score and decreased tooth loss severity, and acceptable denture quality. Although a dose-response relationship was also found in the masticatory performance models, this was not significant. Additionally, the adjusted R2 values of the CUMI models were the highest, followed by those of the masticatory performance and eating impacts. The values indicated that oral and denture status better explained the variances in the CUMI score compared with masticatory performance and eating impacts. A previous study in CD wearers consistently found that an objective masticatory performance better reflected patients’ masticatory ability compared with eating impacts [8]. These results might be because the masticatory performance evaluation using a single food may not reflect the ability to chew a variety of food in daily life [11, 20]. In addition to oral and denture status, masticatory performance is affected by an individual’s bite force and masticatory muscle thickness [8, 30]. Furthermore, we found that up to 70–80% of the participants without eating impact could not or chew the food items in grade IV to V. Misinterpretation of eating impacts may occur when a person adapts to a soft diet without perceiving any eating or chewing problems. Based on the above reasons, the CUMI may better reflect the masticatory ability of patients wearing a dental prosthesis compared with the conventional subjective oral impacts and objective masticatory performance measures.

The CUMI may assist in denture quality evaluation without requiring a dental professional or trained personnel to evaluate denture retention and stability. In this study, the FPD group served as a positive control because they showed the least frequent eating impact, and the highest masticatory performance and CUMI score. Approximately 79% of them could easily chew all food items or get a full CUMI score. Difficulty or inability to chew food items in grade I or II indicates increased severity of tooth loss and denture quality compared with the inability to chew those in grade III–V. Difficulty or inability in chewing food items in grade III–V, and those in grade III and IV was more likely to be reported by patients with an unacceptable RPD quality and unacceptable CD quality, respectively. It was noted that most CD wearers had difficulty or were unable to chew grade V food items and grains or seeds regardless of denture quality. Therefore, to maximize the masticatory ability of CD wearers, mandibular two-implant overdentures should be recommended as the first-choice standard of care for edentulous patients [31].

The food items in the present questionnaire are mostly Asian food, however, it is considered for worldwide use because the Asian-living culture and Asian populations are prevalent worldwide. In addition, the present study aimed not only to develop the questionnaire, but also to propose a concept of developing a questionnaire for masticatory ability evaluation in patients wearing different types and qualities of dental prosthesis. Although the types and number of food items may vary among cultures and environments, the questionnaire should comprise both regularly- and rarely-consumed foods. Food textures should be varied in hardness and toughness, and include sticky, grainy, fibrous foods. Validity testing should be performed using both subjective OHRQoL and objective masticatory ability as references. The discriminant ability of the masticatory index in identifying different tooth loss severities and denture qualities helps determine whether a developed food questionnaire better reflects masticatory ability compared with the conventional subjective and objective measures. Therefore, the CUMI can be used to evaluate the masticatory ability of patients with different oral status and dental prosthesis worn, both in clinical practice and population-based studies. It may be used as a screening tool for determining the priority of prosthodontic treatment need, and dietary consultation.

Some limitations of this study were noted. We did not identify the responsiveness of the CUMI by evaluating if it changed after prosthodontic treatment. Despite including food items with a variety of nutritional types, the association between the CUMI and nutritional status was not investigated. Although this study demonstrated 99% power of sample size, the number of participants might be too small to identify whether the CUMI could differentiate subgroups of some independent variables, such as dental status, and severity of partial and complete edentulous conditions. Further studies should determine the responsiveness of the CUMI before and after prosthodontic treatment. Sample size should be increased to improve the generalizability of the findings in order to utilize the CUMI in various groups of patients with more oral and physical complexity, such as implant-retained overdentures and disabled patients.

Conclusions

Within the limitation of this study, particularly the number and variety of participants, the CUMI can be used as a valid and reliable masticatory index to differentiate different types of dental prostheses and removable denture qualities based on retention and stability. It better reflects masticatory ability in patients wearing a dental prosthesis compared with subjective eating impacts and objective masticatory performance based on peanut mastication.

Criteria for evaluating the retention and stability of removable partial dentures (RPD) as modified from the CU-modified Kapur index and NHANES III.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Criteria for evaluating the clinical quality of removable complete and partial dentures (modified from CU-modified Kapur).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-02795

Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. tumrasvin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

please address the comments on the low report rate of food, the power calculation, and the food global representation of this study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Though the topic is of general interest I really do not see what new aspects relevant to the international scientific community are presented.

The authors developed a food questionnaire based to the reports of only sixty individuals where 40 % were provided with complete dentures and RPDs and only 10% FPD or dentate. This may be already decisively biased as it is known that especially patients with CDs tend to select food that they can mince.

I am not a biostatistician but I doubt the power calculation. I have never seen a power calculation with a power of 0,99 and alpha = 0.05 on the basis of only 110 subjects. Even more as the Stds are quite high.

As the food items are special at least for Asian food the approach is very limited on worldwide perspective.

On the other hand, peanuts that the authors use as a comparison are more or less available worldwide.

The different chewing difficulty levels claimed for the food items were never assessed and /or verified.

With regard to the results I really do not see when compared to the peanuts test

The statement that the developed masticatory index reflects the patients’ ability better the conventional subjective or objective methods is not supported by the data.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Mar 2021

Response to reviewer

The authors are pleased to submit our revised manuscript ID. PONE-D-21-02795, entitle ‘Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures’. The requested revisions have been made in the manuscript in track changes, and our point-by-point responses are below.:

1. Comment: Though the topic is of general interest I really do not see what new aspects relevant to the international scientific community are presented.

Response: The present study demonstrated the concept of developing a single masticatory index using a food questionnaire for evaluating masticatory ability of patients with various oral and denture status. Several new aspects have been proposed as follows:

1) Food questionnaires developed in previous studies included only the regularly-consumed foods. In contrast, the present study suggested developing the index that comprises both regularly- and rarely-consumed foods due to chewing difficulty. In addition, the food types should vary in hardness and toughness, and include sticky, grainy, fibrous foods. This is to improve the ability of the masticatory index to discriminate the patients with different oral and dental prosthesis status, in other words, to improve the ‘discriminant validity’ of the index. The description has been written in the ‘Discussion’ section (Page 15, 1st paragraph)

Note: Discriminant validity measures constructs that theoretically should not be highly related or correlated to each other. The measurement with high discriminant validity would be able to discriminate the variables or constructs that are not correlated to each other.

2) In previous studies, masticatory index was validated with either a conventional subjective or objective masticatory ability measure by determining their associations with the conventional measures, in other words, determining the ‘convergent validity’. The convergent validity indicates that the index is as appropriate as the conventional masticatory ability measure.

In contrast, the present study determined not only the ‘convergent validity’, but also the ‘discriminant validity’ of the index compared with the conventional subjective and objective measures using the multiple regression analyses (Table 3). The discriminant ability of the masticatory index in identifying different tooth loss severities and denture qualities helps determine whether a developed food questionnaire better reflects masticatory ability compared with the conventional subjective and objective measures. The description has been written in the ‘Discussion’ section (Page 16, 1st paragraph).

Therefore, despite the food items may vary among cultures, the concept of questionnaire development in this study can be applied worldwide for other studies with different cultures or environments to create their own masticatory indicator to be used in routine clinical practice and population-based study. The description has been written in the ‘Discussion’ section (Page 17, 2nd paragraph)

2. Comment: The authors developed a food questionnaire based to the reports of only sixty individuals where 40 % were provided with complete dentures and RPDs and only 10% FPD or dentate. This may be already decisively biased as it is known that especially patients with CDs tend to select food that they can mince.

Response:

2.1) Our pilot study at Phase I included 40 patients (15 CD, 15 RPD, 10 FPD and dentate). They were interviewed for the regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods. Then, the additional 20 patients (total = 60) were also interviewed. We found that the most regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods obtained from 40 and 60 patients were similar.

Therefore, the reason for using only 60 individuals because the food items would be similar to those obtained from more than 60 patients.

2.2) The CUMI comprised both regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods. The inclusion of only 10% FPD and 10% dentate was due to the following reasons:

- The inclusion of more removable dentures was because they reported a greater variety of food types and textures compared with FPD and dentate individuals. The wide variety of food type was due to the variation in denture quality and oral status among the RPD and CD wearers. The increased food varieties help improve discriminant validity of the masticatory index.

- This questionnaire consists of both regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods due to chewing difficulty. In addition, not only CD but also RPD, FPD and dentate were interviewed. Therefore, we ensure that a selective bias reported by patients was minimized.

3. Comment: I am not a biostatistician but I doubt the power calculation. I have never seen a power calculation with a power of 0,99 and alpha = 0.05 on the basis of only 110 subjects. Even more as the Stds are quite high.

Response: The F test for analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effect of different means between three groups. A type of power analysis was a post hoc comparison test to compute the achieved power, given an alpha, sample size and effect size.

To calculate the effect size, the mean CUMI values of the three groups (CD = 98.1, RPD = 82.2, and FPD = 63.7) and the highest standard deviation (s.d.) value among three groups (17.0) were used. Then, an effect size of 0.7027 was calculated. Given that the effect size = 0.7027, an alpha = 0.05, and a total sample of 110 within 3 groups, the power of 99% was achieved. The relatively high power is due to the significant differences between the FPD and the CD group. The calculation was shown in the below figure.

4. Comment: As the food items are special at least for Asian food the approach is very limited on worldwide perspective. On the other hand, peanuts that the authors use as a comparison are more or less available worldwide.

Response: The food items in the present questionnaire are special for Asian food, however, it is considered for worldwide use because the Asian-living culture and Asian populations are prevalent worldwide. In addition, the present study aimed not only to develop the questionnaire, but also to propose a concept of developing a questionnaire for masticatory ability evaluation in patients wearing different types of dental prosthesis. The authors believe that the readers can apply the concept and protocol of the present study to develop their own questionnaires, to be used in other cultures and countries.

Although peanut mastication is worldwide used, it is not practical in routine dental practice and population-based study because it requires special equipment and time-consuming to perform (The description has been written in the ‘Introduction’ section, Page 4, 1st Paragraph). The special equipment includes standard test sieves and vibrating sieve shaker. Peanut test is time consumption since it takes 2 days for evaluation process, from obtaining peanut particles comminuted by patients, drying peanut particles for 24 hours, and then analyzing the peanut particle size on the next day to obtain the result. Additional personal is also required to perform the evaluation process. Therefore, peanut mastication is practical only in clinical study or research, while the developed CUMI is more practical to be used in routine clinical practice and population-based study.

5. Comment: The different chewing difficulty levels claimed for the food items were never assessed and /or verified.

Response: The different chewing difficulty levels have never been assessed/verified by any special instruments or equipment. This was because chewing difficulty level is the outcome which includes mixed properties of the food, for example, hardness, toughness, stickiness, slipperiness, fibrousness, and so on. Therefore, no specific instrument can be used to verify the different chewing difficulty levels of the food items.

However, the index was verified by three experts in prosthodontics, and determined their agreement in grading levels of chewing difficulty for each food item.

6. Comment: With regard to the results, I really do not see when compared to the peanuts test. The statement that the developed masticatory index reflects the patients’ ability better the conventional subjective or objective methods is not supported by the data.

Response: The comparison between the CUMI, peanut test, and eating impact has been performed by using the multiple regression analyses to determine the ‘discriminant validity’ of each measure (Table 3). The results showed that after adjusting for age and sex, there was a significant dose-response relationship between an increased CUMI score, greater tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality. Meanwhile, a dose-response relationship was not shown in the peanut particle size and eating impact models. For type of dental prosthesis model, the peanut particle size was significantly different only between FPD and CD, whereas the oral impact was different only between the acceptable and unacceptable denture quality. For both oral and denture status models, the adjusted R2 values of the CUMI outcome was the highest, followed by those of peanut particle size and eating impacts. (The descriptions have been revised in the ‘Result’ section, Page 12).

The statistically significant differences in the CUMI score between different tooth loss severity, as well as type and quality of dental prosthesis indicated that the discriminant validity of the CUMI in identifying different oral and denture status was better than those of eating impacts and masticatory performance. The highest adjusted R2 values of the CUMI models, followed by those of the masticatory performance and eating impacts, indicated that oral and denture status better explained the variances in the CUMI score compared with masticatory performance and eating impacts. The descriptions have been written in the ‘Discussion’ section, Page 16, 1st Paragraph.

Sincerely yours,

Wacharasak Tumrasvin

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-02795R1

Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. tumrasvin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers and editor do not feel that the reviewer 1's comments were thoroughly addressed from the last revision. Please carefully address the comments and revise it before you resubmit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I do not see any relevant change in the manuscript. Thus there is no reason to reconsider my recommendation

Reviewer #2: The study design using specific asian food makes the study hard to reproduce or repeat.

The previous comments were not responded reasonably especially comment 2, 4 and 5.

Is there any positive control in this study? please discuss.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Aug 2021

The authors are pleased to submit our revised manuscript ID. PONE-D-21-02795R1, entitle ‘Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures’. The requested revisions have been made in the manuscript in track changes, and our point-by-point responses are below.

Reviewer #1:

The authors would like to apologize for our misunderstandings regarding the first revision of the manuscript. Therefore, we have added the descriptions in the second revised version of the manuscript according to your recommendations.

1. Comment: The authors developed a food questionnaire based to the reports of only sixty individuals where 40 % were provided with complete dentures and RPDs and only 10% FPD or dentate. This may be already decisively biased as it is known that especially patients with CDs tend to select food that they can mince.

Response:

Initially, 40 patients (37.5% CD, 37.5% RPD, and 10% FPD and dentate) were asked about the typical food types they had eaten during the past week, and the food types they had difficulty in chewing or would like to eat but could not chew at all. Then, the additional 20 patients were interviewed. We found that the most regularly-consumed and rarely-consumed foods obtained from 40 and 60 patients were similar. Therefore, the Phase I comprised a total of 60 patients (40% CD, 40% RPD, 10% FPD and 10% dentate individuals). A higher proportion of removable dentures was included because they reported a greater variety of food types and textures compared with FPD and dentate individuals. The wide variety of food type was due to the variation in denture quality and oral status among the RPD and CD wearers. Then, 80 food types were obtained from the interview. The increased food varieties help improve discriminant validity of the masticatory index. These descriptions have been added in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, ‘Phase I’ subsection (Page 6).

2. Comment: As the food items are special at least for Asian food the approach is very limited on worldwide perspective. On the other hand, peanuts that the authors use as a comparison are more or less available worldwide.

Response: The food items in the present questionnaire are special for Asian food, however, it is considered for worldwide use because the Asian-living culture and Asian populations are prevalent worldwide. In addition, the present study aimed not only to develop the questionnaire, but also to propose a concept of developing a questionnaire for masticatory ability evaluation in patients wearing different types of dental prosthesis. The authors believe that the readers can apply the concept and protocol of the present study to develop their own questionnaires, to be used in other cultures and countries. These descriptions have been added in the ‘Discussion’ section, 1st Paragraph, Page 19.

Although multiple sieve method of peanut mastication is worldwide used, it consumes more time and resources to perform than the subjective measures. The whole evaluation process takes 2 days to obtain the result since collecting the comminuted peanut particles from patients, drying the comminuted peanut particles overnight, and then, analyzing the peanut particle size on the next day. Therefore, peanut mastication might be practical only in clinical study or research. These descriptions have been added in the ‘Discussion’ section, 1st Paragraph, Page 17.

3. Comment: The different chewing difficulty levels claimed for the food items were never assessed and /or verified.

Response: The chewing difficulty levels were obtained from participants’ response, and the food items were ranked from the highest to lowest masticatory score. In addition to the participants’ responses, three experts in prosthodontics scored the masticatory difficulty grade of each food item, and the values were compared with those obtained from all participants. Weighted Kappa scores ranging from 0.75–0.87 were calculated, indicating 90–95% agreement between the experts and participants. These descriptions have been added in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, ‘Phase II - CUMI assessment’ subsection (Page 8).

The different chewing difficulty levels were verified between dental experts and patients. However, we did not use any specific instrument to assess masticatory difficulty level of each food item because it includes mixed properties of the food such as hardness, toughness, stickiness, slipperiness, and fibrousness. Therefore, no specific instrument can comprehensively determine these properties and verify the outcome. These descriptions have been written in the ‘Discussion’ section, 2nd Paragraph, Page 16.

4. Comment: The statement that the developed masticatory index reflects the patients’ ability better the conventional subjective or objective methods is not supported by the data.

Response: The developed masticatory index reflects the patients’ ability better than the conventional subjective and objective methods was supported by discriminant validity as shown by a dose-response relationship between the decreased CUMI score and increased tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality. To support the statement, the revisions have been made in the ‘Abstract’ and ‘Discussion’ sections as follows:

- In ‘Abstract section’, the revisions regarding discriminant validity have been made in the Methods, Results, and Conclusion.

- In ‘Result’ section’ (Page 14), the revision has been made in the multiple regression analysis of the CUMI stated that “After adjusting for age and sex, there was a significant dose-response relationship between an increased CUMI score, greater tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality. Meanwhile, a dose-response relationship was not shown in the peanut particle size and eating impact models. For type of dental prosthesis model, the peanut particle size was significantly different only between FPD and CD, whereas the oral impact was different only between the acceptable and unacceptable denture quality. For both oral and denture status models, the adjusted R2 values of the CUMI outcome was the highest, followed by those of peanut particle size and eating impacts. Therefore, the CUMI demonstrated better discriminant validity than the peanut particle size and eating impact models.”

- In ‘Discussion’ section, 1st paragraph: “Since significant dose-response relationships were reported only between an increased CUMI score and greater tooth loss severity, and unacceptable denture quality, the CUMI demonstrated better discriminant validity than the conventional subjective and objective measures. The results indicated that the developed masticatory index better reflected patients’ masticatory ability compared with conventional subjective and objective measures.”

Reviewer #2:

1. Comments: The study design using specific Asian food makes the study hard to reproduce or repeat.

Response: The food items in the present questionnaire are special for Asian food, however, it is considered for worldwide use because the Asian-living culture and Asian populations are prevalent worldwide. In addition, the present study aimed not only to develop the questionnaire, but also to propose a concept of developing a questionnaire for masticatory ability evaluation in patients wearing different types of dental prosthesis. These descriptions have been added in the ‘Discussion’ section, 1st Paragraph, Page 19.

2. Comments: The previous comments were not responded reasonably especially comment 2, 4 and 5.

Response: The authors have responded to the previous comments especially 2, 4 and 5 and have revised them in the manuscript according to the reviewer’s recommendations.

3. Comments: Is there any positive control in this study? please discuss.

Response: In this study, the FPD group (dentate individuals who had at least 26 remaining natural teeth) served as a positive control because they showed the least frequent eating impact, and the highest masticatory performance and CUMI score. Approximately 79% of them could easily chew all food items or get a full CUMI score. The descriptions have been added in the ‘Discussion’ section (2nd Paragraph, Page 18) and mentioned in the “Materials and Methods” section.

Sincerely yours,

Wacharasak Tumrasvin

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_revise2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jan 2022

6 Jan 2022

The authors would like to give thanks for your time spent in peer-reviewing our manuscript. We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript ID. PONE-D-21-02795R2, entitle ‘Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures’. The requested revisions have been made in the manuscript in track changes, and our point-by-point responses are below.

Reviewer #3:

1. Comment: The authors did a good job in addressing previous reviews and comments. The following are suggested modifications so that the manuscript can be acceptable for publication.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and comments.

2. Comment: In the introduction, authors keep using the term "dental prosthesis" which is a little bit confusing as they cite articles that report on complete dentures. Please unify terminology through the introduction and manuscript.

Response: A terminology of ‘dental prosthesis’ in this manuscript context has been defined in the 1st paragraph of ‘Introduction’ section; “In this context, a dental prosthesis refers to fixed partial denture (FPD), removable partial denture (RPD), and complete denture (CD).” The references have been revised throughout the manuscript to ensure that the cited articles cover the term ‘dental prosthesis’.

3. Comment: Add a paragraph describing the limitations of this study and the drawn conclusions especially considering the subjects number.

Response: The limitations of this study has been written in a separated paragraph. The limitation, considering the number of participants, has been added in the last paragraph of the ‘Discussion’ section, and in the ‘Conclusion’ section.

Sincerely yours,

Wacharasak Tumrasvin

Corresponding author on behalf of all authors

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_revise3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jan 2022

Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures

PONE-D-21-02795R3

Dear Dr. tumrasvin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for the revision and responses to the reviewers.

Reviewers' comments:

17 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-02795R3

Masticatory Index for Patients Wearing Dental Prosthesis as Alternative to Conventional Masticatory Ability Measures

Dear Dr. Tumrasvin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sompop Bencharit

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE