Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related?

Casey Lepley, Gaylord Throckmorton, Sarah Parker, Peter H. Buschang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil®, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, threedimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. Results: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 ± 0.225 sec vs 0.325 ± 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. Conclusions: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:295-301.)

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)295-301
Number of pages7
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume80
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2010

Fingerprint

Mastication
Biomechanical Phenomena
Jaw
Computer Systems
Particle Size
Cross-Sectional Studies
Food

Keywords

  • Chewing cycles
  • Chewing gum
  • Humans
  • Kinematics
  • Masticatory performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Lepley, C., Throckmorton, G., Parker, S., & Buschang, P. H. (2010). Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related? Angle Orthodontist, 80(2), 295-301. https://doi.org/10.2319/061109-333.1

Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related? / Lepley, Casey; Throckmorton, Gaylord; Parker, Sarah; Buschang, Peter H.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 80, No. 2, 03.2010, p. 295-301.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lepley, C, Throckmorton, G, Parker, S & Buschang, PH 2010, 'Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related?', Angle Orthodontist, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 295-301. https://doi.org/10.2319/061109-333.1
Lepley, Casey ; Throckmorton, Gaylord ; Parker, Sarah ; Buschang, Peter H. / Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related?. In: Angle Orthodontist. 2010 ; Vol. 80, No. 2. pp. 295-301.
@article{a67757bfe2994a9ca8c8af0069e8a849,
title = "Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related?",
abstract = "Objective: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil{\circledR}, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, threedimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. Results: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 ± 0.225 sec vs 0.325 ± 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. Conclusions: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:295-301.)",
keywords = "Chewing cycles, Chewing gum, Humans, Kinematics, Masticatory performance",
author = "Casey Lepley and Gaylord Throckmorton and Sarah Parker and Buschang, {Peter H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
doi = "10.2319/061109-333.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "80",
pages = "295--301",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics- Are they related?

AU - Lepley, Casey

AU - Throckmorton, Gaylord

AU - Parker, Sarah

AU - Buschang, Peter H.

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - Objective: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil®, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, threedimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. Results: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 ± 0.225 sec vs 0.325 ± 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. Conclusions: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:295-301.)

AB - Objective: To compare chewing cycle kinematics of subjects with better and poorer masticatory performance. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study compared masticatory performance, based on the breakdown of the artificial test food Cuttersil®, in 30 subjects with Class I occlusion. Individuals with median particle sizes greater and lesser than the median value for the entire sample were categorized as poorer (15) and better (15) performers, respectively. While chewing Cuttersil, threedimensional jaw movements of subjects were tracked with an optoelectric computer system. Multilevel linear modeling was used to evaluate differences in estimated cycle shape, cycle duration, and maximum excursions, as well as within-subject variation between the two groups. Results: Poorer performers had a significantly longer opening duration (0.274 ± 0.225 sec vs 0.325 ± 0.270 sec) than better performers. Poorer and better performers also showed significant differences in cycle shape, including a less horizontal path of closure and more posterior jaw movement in the poorer performers. In addition, poorer performers exhibited significantly more cycle-to-cycle (within-subject) variability in chewing cycle duration, excursive movements, and lateral velocity than did better performers. Conclusions: Poorer performers lacked consistency in their chewing cycles, and their cycle shape differs from that of better performers. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:295-301.)

KW - Chewing cycles

KW - Chewing gum

KW - Humans

KW - Kinematics

KW - Masticatory performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73349093779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=73349093779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/061109-333.1

DO - 10.2319/061109-333.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 19905854

AN - SCOPUS:73349093779

VL - 80

SP - 295

EP - 301

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 2

ER -