4.6 Article

Objective masticatory efficiency and subjective quality of masticatory function among patients with periodontal disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 11, Pages 1344-1353

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13364

Keywords

masticatory comfort; masticatory function; patient-reported outcome measures; periodontitis

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 (x(2) = 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 (x(2) = -0.317,p < 0.001), Quigley-Hein Index (x(2) = 0.152,p = 0.031), attachment level (x(2) = 0.268,p < 0.001), probing depths (x(2) = 0.185,p = 0.006), tooth mobility (x(2) = 0.147,p = 0.031) and functional occlusal units (x(2) = -0.423,p < 0.001) but not bleeding on probing. A trend existed between QMF and number of teeth (x(2) = -0.237,p = 0.050) and functional occlusal units (x(2) = 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available