PubMed · 7978518
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J L Hockel. 1994. Incisal bite force.. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064%3C0245%3Aar%3E2.0.co%3B2
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Masticatory function can be assessed by chewing tests and questionnaires or personal interviews. Whereas the chewing tests allow the assessment of masticatory efficiency with some objectivity, questionnaires help evaluate a person's subjective responses about chewing ability. Epidemiologic studies indicate a subjective decrease in chewing ability with increasing degree of tooth loss, a trend that was confirmed in the literature. Of interest was that the subjective measures of masticatory ability are often overrated when compared with the functional tests. Masticatory function is a patient factor rather than a parameter that prosthetic treatment can qualify. It depends on a variety of personal and subjective factors that can hardly be influenced by the practitioner. This article describes and discusses scientific sociophysiologic and biomedical approaches to evaluating masticatory function.
Oral function was evaluated in 30 patients (25 women and five men) after TMJ surgery by means of bite force measurements. Twenty-seven discectomies and three condylectomies had been performed. The follow-up period was, on average, 2.5 years. The mean bite force values on the function level 'biting as when chewing' was for the whole group 125.3 N on the right side and 128.8 N on the left side. The maximal bite force was on average 362.5 N and maximal endurance time on average 32 s. All test results showed big ranges. No significant differences between right and left side or operated and non-operated side could be found on the tested function level 'biting as when chewing'. The found bite force values were high in comparison with another similar study. The results were also compared with another group of patients (n = 6) who were examined before and 6 months after surgery. As far as bite force reflects oral function the results are indeed very encouraging.
The author recorded the occlusion of 100 patients with fixed implant prostheses on 571 endosseous root form implants when the implants were placed. He made six subsequent occlusal contact comparisons at three-month intervals. Hyperocclusion occurred on implant prostheses in nearly half of the patients during the test period, with the majority of changes occurring in the first three to six months. These changes in the distribution of occlusal contact forces may partially explain the reports of early implant failure by other investigators, and they suggest the need for a more vigorous post-insertion occlusal evaluation.