We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Int J Prosthodont 30 (2017), No. 6     17. Nov. 2017
Int J Prosthodont 30 (2017), No. 6  (17.11.2017)

Page 565-572, doi:10.11607/ijp.5289, PubMed:29084301

Masticatory Performance and Maximum Bite and Lip Force Depend on the Type of Prosthesis
Schimmel, Martin / Memedi, Kujtim / Parga, Tatiana / Katsoulis, Joannis / Müller, Frauke
Purpose: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess maximum restraining lip force (MLF), maximum voluntary bite force (MBF), and patient-related parameters to evaluate their influence on masticatory function in four groups of participants with different dental states.
Methods: Participants were recruited and assigned to one of four different groups depending on dental status: complete removable dental prostheses (CRDP group); edentulous with two-implant overdentures (IOD group); Kennedy Class I partial removable dental prostheses (PRDP group); or fully dentate (control group). A dental examination was performed and history taken. MLF was measured as the maximum withstood pulling force with three sizes of oral screens, MBF was evaluated using a digital force gauge, and masticatory performance was assessed using a two-color mixing ability test. Linear regression was used to determine the predictive effects of covariates on masticatory performance. Global and pairwise comparisons were also carried out.
Results: A total of 68 participants with an average age of 69.3 ± 7.7 years were recruited. MLF depended on the screen size (P = .0004; Kruskal-Wallis) and increased with CRDP use, especially in challenging tasks, such as restraining the smallest screen. The highest MBF was found in dentate participants (P < .0001; Mann-Whitney). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a global significant difference in masticatory performance between groups, with PRDP patients chewing better than CRDP patients. Dental state, time lapse since last tooth loss, and MBF predicted masticatory function.
Conclusion: Tooth loss significantly affects MBF and masticatory performance. Free-end saddles with a rotational axis in two-implant IODs and Kennedy Class I PRDPs may limit MBF and consequently masticatory performance. CRDP design should facilitate perioral muscular function.