Comparison of chewing activity in patients requiring complete denture with two different occlusions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2020.02Keywords:
Lingualized occlusion, Sieve test, Bilateral balanced occlusionAbstract
Background and Objectives: The loss of natural teeth causes many problems; one of major problems that are associated with edentulousness is the hypotonicity of muscles of mastication and decreasing the ability of the patient to chew food properly. Treatment of edentulous patients with complete denture will increase the muscle tonicity and chewing activity. The purpose of this study is to clinically compare patient's chewing ability between lingualized occlusion complete denture and bilaterally balanced occlusion complete dentures.
Materials and methods: Two sets of complete dentures with different occlusions were fabricated for ten patients. The patients received bilaterally balanced occlusion (BBO) complete denture and lingualized occlusion (LO) complete denture in random order. The patients wear each set of complete denture for one month. During this month, chewing activity tests were performed for the patients in four different time intervals. The results of these tests were analyzed using t-test and paired t-test to compare between the lingualized occlusion and bilaterally balanced occlusion complete denture and also to compare the results of each time interval with each other.
Results: The mean amount of the walnuts that passed through the sieve in LO dentures were (1.78g), during the fourth visit while it was (1.18g) in BBO. There were statistically significant difference between LO and BBO schemes of complete denture when measuring the amount of the chewed walnuts that passed through the sieve in second, third and fourth visit (p=0.037, 0.001 and 0.000).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it has beenconcluded that the chewing ability was higher in patients who were provided with complete dentures fabricated with the LO scheme as compared to those patients who received complete dentures made with BBO scheme. This was due to the fact that LO technique resulted in functionally better complete dentures as compared to the ones made by BBO technique
References
2. Engelmeier RL. Earydesignes for the occlusal anatomy of posterior denture teeth: part III. J Prosthod 2005; 14:131-6.
3. Kawai Y, Ikeguchi N, Suzuki A, Kuwashima A, Sakamoto R, Matsumaru Y et al. A double blinded randomized clinical trial comparing lingualized and fully bilateral balanced posterior occlusion for conventional complete denturs. J Prosthod Res 2017; 6:113-22.
4. Jambhekar S, Kheur M, Kothavade M, Dugal R.
Occlusal and occlusal consideration in implantology. IJDA 2010; 2(1):125-30.
5. Becker CM, Swoope CC, Guckes AD. Lingualized occlusion for removable prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1977; 38:601-8.
6. Masari O, Yuichiro N, Toshio H, Toshiaka T, katsuhiko N. Functional efficiency of full balanced occlusion and lingualized occlusion evaluated from morphological differences in edentulous alveolar ridge. Prosthod Res Pract 2002; 1:31-40.
7. Ahmed AR, Muneer MU, Hakeem S. Masticatory efficiency between balanced and lingualized occlusion in complete denture wearers. PODA 2013; 33(1):200-6.
8. Matsumaru Y. Influence of mandibular residual ridge resorption on objective masticatory measures of lingualized and fully bilateral balanced denture articulation. J Prosthod Res 2010; 54:112-18.
9. Parr GR, Ivanhoe JR. Lingualized occlusion. An occlusion for all reasons. Dent Clin North Am 1996; 40:103-12.
10. Lang BR. Complete denture occlusion. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48:641-665.
11. Phoenix RD, Engelmeier RL. Lingualized occlusion revisited. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104:342-46.
12. The glossary of prosthodontic terms (2017). 9th ed. J Prosthet Dent; 117(5): 9-92.
13. Liedberg B, Ekberg O, Wall B. Chewing and the dimension of the pharyngoesophageal segment. Dysphaia 1991; 6:214-8.
14. Feine JS, Lund JP. Measuring chewing ability in randomized controlled trials with edentulous populations wearing implant prosthesis. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33:301-8
15. Kapur KK, Soman SD. Masticatory performance and efficiency in denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95:407-11.
16. Deniz DA, Ozkan YK. The influence of occlusion on masticatory performance and satisfaction in complete denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil 2013; 40:91-8.
17. Sinnurkar S, Shakh SA, Nadiger R. Analysis of change in bilateral masseter and anterior temporalis muscle efficiency in complete denture wearers. An EMG study. Int J Adv Res 2017; 5
(2):2672-83.
18. Fenlon MR, Sherrif M. Investigation of new complete denture quality and patient's satisfaction with and use of dentures after two years. J Dent 2004; 32:327-33.
19. Koide K. Selection of occlusal scheme on masticatory function in denture wearers. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2004; 48: 681-90.
20. Gomibuchi T, Kaoru K, Satoshi H. Masticatory Function between Lingualized Occlusion and Full Balanced Occlusion. J Jpn Soc Prosthod 2000, 44; 339-47.
21. Kimoto S, Gunji A, Yamakawa A, Ajiro H, Kanno K, Shinomiya M, Kawai Y et al. Prospective clinical trial comparing lingualized occlusion to bilateral balanced occlusion in complete dentures. A pilot study. Int J Prosthod 2006; 19:103-9.
22. Ono K, Hatake S. The form of occlusion in denture wearers. The effect of lingualized occlusion on masticatory function. Shigaku 1988; 76: 107-37.
23. Ghani F. Prosthetic posterior teeth with cusps may improve patient satisfaction with complete dentures. Evid Based Dent 2005; 6: 39-40
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Jiyar Amin Ali, Rizgar Mohammed Ameen Hasan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in Erbil Dental Journal is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
