Premium
Motor behavior during the first chewing cycle in subjects with fixed tooth‐ or implant‐supported prostheses
Author(s) -
Grigoriadis Joannis,
Trulsson Mats,
Svensson Krister G.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12559
Subject(s) - dentistry , implant , biting , orthodontics , range of motion , medicine , biology , surgery , ecology
Abstract Objectives Appropriate sensory information from periodontal mechanoreceptors ( PMR s) is important for optimizing the positioning of food and adjustment of force vectors during precision biting. This study was designed to describe motor behavior during the first cycle of a natural chewing task and to evaluate the role of such sensory input in this behavior. Material and methods While 10 subjects with natural dentition, 11 with bimaxillary fixed tooth‐supported prostheses ( TSP ) and 10 with bimaxillary fixed implant‐supported prostheses ( ISP ) (mean age 69 [range 61–83]) chewed a total of five hazelnuts, their vertical and lateral jaw movements were recorded. Data obtained during the first chewing cycle of each hazelnut were analyzed. Results The amplitude of vertical and lateral mandibular movement and duration of jaw opening did not differ between the groups, indicating similar behavior during this part of the chewing cycle. However, only 30% of the subjects in the natural dentate group, but 82% of those in the TSP and 70% in the ISP group exhibited slippage of the hazelnut during jaw closure in at least one of five trials. The TSP and ISP groups also exhibited more irregular and narrower patterns of motion (total lateral/vertical movement = 0.15 and 0.19, respectively, compared to 0.27 for the natural group). Conclusions Subjects with fixed tooth‐ or implant‐supported prostheses in both jaws show altered behavior, including inadequate control of the hazelnut, during the first chewing cycle. We propose that these differences are due to impairment or absence of sensory signaling from PMR s in these individuals.