PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15369465

Chewing side preferences in children.

S T Mc Donnell·M P Hector·A Hannigan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The dentition of 57 children aged 6-8 years old was examined clinically and radiographically. Subjects were divided into groups according to state of the dentition: caries free, no pathology and no pain; caries, no pathology and no pain; caries, pathology and no pain; caries, pathology and pain. The existence of a preferred chewing side (PCS) was determined using a visual spot-checking method. Subjects were instructed to chew gum on their posterior teeth. After 15 s the position of the chewing gum was recorded as right or left. This procedure was carried out seven times consecutively. Subjects had an 'observed preferred chewing side' (OPCS) when they chewed 5/7, 6/7 or 7/7 times on the same side. To determine if children were aware of their chewing side preference each subject's stated PCS was then recorded as left, right or none. 'Coincidence' between stated and OPCSs was said to occur if the stated PCS corresponded to the OPCS. Seventy-seven per cent of children had a PCS. The majority (70%) of caries free children also had a PCS (P < 0.05). The percentage with an OPCS varied from 70% of the caries free group to 92% of the group with caries, pathology and pain. However, there was no statistically significant association between state of the dentition and the presence of a PCS. Coincidence occurred in 56% of children. There was a statistically significant association between state of the dentition and coincidence (P=0.02). Children in pain were most likely to show coincidence (kappa=0.81).

Explore related subjects

AwarenessChildDental CariesFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMaleMasticationPainSex FactorsTooth DiseasesTooth, DeciduousJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S T Mc Donnell, M P Hector, A Hannigan. 2004. Chewing side preferences in children.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01316.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

One, two, three, four, nothing more: an investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles.

Since the publication of [Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.] seminal work on the development of verbal counting as a representation of number, the nature of the ontogenetic sources of the verbal counting principles has been intensely debated. The present experiments explore proposals according to which the verbal counting principles are acquired by mapping numerals in the count list onto systems of numerical representation for which there is evidence in infancy, namely, analog magnitudes, parallel individuation, and set-based quantification. By asking 3- and 4-year-olds to estimate the number of elements in sets without counting, we investigate whether the numerals that are assigned cardinal meaning as part of the acquisition process display the signatures of what we call "enriched parallel individuation" (which combines properties of parallel individuation and of set-based quantification) or analog magnitudes. Two experiments demonstrate that while "one" to "four" are mapped onto core representations of small sets prior to the acquisition of the counting principles, numerals beyond "four" are only mapped onto analog magnitudes about six months after the acquisition of the counting principles. Moreover, we show that children's numerical estimates of sets from 1 to 4 elements fail to show the signature of numeral use based on analog magnitudes - namely, scalar variability. We conclude that, while representations of small sets provided by parallel individuation, enriched by the resources of set-based quantification are recruited in the acquisition process to provide the first numerical meanings for "one" to "four", analog magnitudes play no role in this process.

Awareness↗
PubMed2007

[The brain-mind debate. Problems in the philosophy of science with regard to psychiatry].

The present interdisciplinary brain-mind debate with regard to neurobiology shows deficits in the criticism of methods and in the precision of language and argumentation. Simplifying localisations of psychic functions, insufficient explanations and over-interpretations in the sense of physical determinism are the consequence. This can be demonstrated in deficits of neurobiological theories of volitional action. Therefore, the current concept of man is less perturbed than is proposed by neurobiologists. For psychiatry besides the neurobiological approach also a separate way of building models seems to be useful if present theoretical psychology and systems science would be regarded. In particular, the systems science of natural systems offers new opportunities to bridge gaps between disciplines involved in the brain-mind debate.

Awareness↗