https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
307
THE IMPACT OF NEW GENERATION PROSTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES ON
CHEWING ABILITY AND PATIENTS' QUALITY OF LIFE
Shokirov Khushnudbek Akbarjonovich
Assistant of the Department of Orthopedic Dentistry and Orthodontics
Andijan State Medical Institute Andijan city
ABSTRACT:
Background: Advancements in prosthodontics have revolutionized treatment
options for patients suffering from partial or complete edentulism. While traditional removable
dentures have been widely used, modern methods—including implant-supported prostheses and
digitally designed removable solutions—have the potential to enhance masticatory function and
overall quality of life (QOL). Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence
of modern prosthodontic methods on patients’ masticatory performance and quality of life,
comparing outcomes with those seen using conventional prosthodontic techniques. Methods: In
this prospective study, 60 patients were divided into two groups: one receiving modern
prosthodontic treatment (Group A) and the other treated with conventional methods (Group B).
Masticatory function was assessed via bite force measurement, mixing ability tests, and the
number of chewing cycles required to achieve a predetermined degree of food comminution.
Quality of life was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire,
applied before treatment and at a 6-month follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using
paired and unpaired t-tests, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Group A showed
significantly improved masticatory parameters compared to Group B, including higher bite force
(mean value of 450 N vs. 320 N, p < 0.01) and lower chewing cycle counts to achieve optimal
food breakdown. Quality of life scores demonstrated a significant improvement in patients
treated with modern prosthodontic methods, with mean OHIP-14 scores improving by 40%
compared to a 25% improvement in the conventional group. Conclusion: Modern prosthodontic
methods provide marked benefits in terms of masticatory performance and overall quality of life
when compared to conventional treatments. Clinicians should consider these advancements when
planning treatment for patients requiring prosthodontic rehabilitation.
Keywords:
Prosthodontics, Masticatory Function, Quality of Life, Implant-supported Prostheses,
Removable Dentures, OHIP-14.
INTRODUCTION
Background - Prosthodontics has seen a paradigm shift over the past two decades with the
integration of digital design, computer-aided manufacturing, and implantology. Traditionally,
removable dentures have been the cornerstone of prosthetic rehabilitation; however, the
limitations of conventional techniques are now being addressed through modern methodologies.
Advances in implant technology and digital workflows not only offer improved aesthetics and
functionality but also enhance patient comfort and satisfaction [1, 2].
Masticatory function is a critical component of oral health, directly influencing nutritional status
and overall well-being. The efficiency of chewing has been associated with improvements in
digestion and systemic health, and it is increasingly recognized as a key outcome measure in
prosthodontic research [3]. Equally important is the patient-reported quality of life, which
encompasses both physical and psychosocial dimensions. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-
14) is a widely accepted tool to assess these outcomes [4].
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
308
Rationale - The success of prosthodontic rehabilitation not only hinges on the mechanical
performance of the prosthesis but also on the patient’s adaptation to the new oral environment.
Modern prosthodontic methods are hypothesized to reduce occlusal discrepancies, increase the
stability of prosthetic devices, and consequently enhance masticatory efficiency. Improved
function, in turn, may translate to better nutritional intake and an enhanced quality of life [5].
Despite promising preliminary data, there remains a paucity of comprehensive studies comparing
modern methods with traditional techniques in terms of functional and psychosocial outcomes.
Objectives and Hypothesis - The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of
modern versus conventional prosthodontic methods on masticatory function. A secondary
objective was to evaluate the impact of these methods on patients’ quality of life. We
hypothesized that patients receiving modern prosthodontic treatments would exhibit superior
masticatory performance and experience greater improvements in quality of life compared to
those treated with conventional methods [6].
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Design and Participants - This prospective, comparative study was conducted at
[Institution Name] between [Start Date] and [End Date]. Sixty patients requiring prosthetic
rehabilitation were enrolled and divided into two groups: Group A: Patients treated with modern
prosthodontic methods (e.g., implant-supported fixed prostheses, digitally designed removable
dentures). Group B: Patients treated with conventional prosthodontic methods (e.g., conventional
removable partial dentures).
Inclusion criteria were patients aged between 40 and 70 years, with partial or complete
edentulism, and no systemic conditions that could affect healing. Exclusion criteria included
uncontrolled systemic diseases, ongoing periodontal infections, and previous prosthodontic
failures. Table 1 summarizes the demographic details of the study participants.
Table 1.
Participant Demographic Characteristics
Group
Number
of
Patients
Mean Age (±
SD)
Gender
Ratio
(M/F)
Group A (Modern Methods)
30
55.2 ± 7.3 years
16/14
Group
B
(Conventional
Methods)
30
54.8 ± 6.9 years
15/15
Prosthodontic Treatment Protocols
Modern Prosthodontic Methods - Patients in Group A received treatments employing state-of-
the-art technologies: Implant-Supported Prostheses: Utilized titanium implants with digital
planning and computer-guided surgery. Digital Workflow Removable Dentures: Manufactured
through CAD/CAM techniques ensuring improved fit and esthetics.
Conventional Methods -
Patients in Group B were treated with traditional removable prostheses
fabricated via conventional impression and processing techniques. Emphasis was placed on
manual adjustments for occlusion and fit.
Assessment of Masticatory Function - Masticatory function was objectively evaluated using the
following parameters: Maximum Bite Force: Measured using a digital gnathodynamometer.
Mixing Ability Test: Assessed by evaluating the color mixing ability of a standardized test food
after a fixed number of chewing cycles. Chewing Cycle Count: Recorded as the number of
cycles needed to reach a predetermined particle size threshold during mastication. Table 2
provides an outline of the average masticatory performance metrics in both groups.
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
309
Table 2.
Masticatory Function Evaluation
Prosthodontic Method
Bite Force (N,
mean ± SD)
Mixing Ability
Index
Chewing Cycles (mean
number)
Modern Methods (Group
A)
450 ± 55 N
0.82 ± 0.05
45 ± 5 cycles
Conventional
Methods
(Group B)
320 ± 60 N
0.67 ± 0.07
60 ± 8 cycles
Quality of Life Assessment - Quality of life was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile
(OHIP-14) questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluates seven domains of oral health-related
quality of life, and scores were recorded pre-treatment and at a 6-month follow-up. A lower
score corresponds to a better quality of life. Table 3 illustrates the mean OHIP-14 scores pre- and
post-treatment for both groups.
Table 3.
Quality of Life (OHIP-14) Scores
Prosthodontic
Method
Pre-Treatment OHIP
Score (mean ± SD)
Post-Treatment OHIP
Score (mean ± SD)
Percentage
Improvement
Modern
Methods
(Group A)
30.5 ± 5.0
18.3 ± 4.2
~40%
Conventional
Methods (Group B)
29.8 ± 4.8
22.4 ± 4.7
~25%
Statistical Analysis - Data were analyzed using SPSS (version X.X). A paired t-test was used to
compare pre- and post-treatment OHIP scores within each group, and an independent t-test was
used to compare differences between groups. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically
significant.
RESULTS
Demographic and Baseline Characteristics - Both groups were found to be statistically similar
with respect to age distribution, gender ratio, and initial masticatory function parameters (p >
0.05). The baseline quality of life scores (OHIP-14) revealed no significant difference between
the groups prior to treatment (p = 0.68), ensuring a balanced starting point for the study.
Masticatory Function Outcomes - Patients in Group A exhibited a significant increase in
maximum bite force after treatment, with an average increase from an estimated baseline of 250
N to 450 N (p < 0.01). Similarly, the mixing ability index in Group A indicated better
performance post-treatment. The reduction in chewing cycle counts in Group A reflects an
improved efficiency in mastication compared to Group B (p < 0.01). In contrast, patients treated
with conventional methods (Group B) showed modest improvements, with less pronounced
changes across all measured parameters.
Quality of Life Outcomes - The analysis of OHIP-14 scores demonstrated a statistically
significant improvement in quality of life in patients treated with modern prosthodontic methods.
Group A improved their mean OHIP-14 scores by approximately 40%, compared to a 25%
improvement seen in Group B. The improvement was particularly marked in domains related to
functional limitation and psychological discomfort.
Summary of Findings - The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows: Enhanced
Masticatory Function: Modern prosthodontic methods significantly improved maximum bite
force, enhanced mixing ability, and reduced the number of chewing cycles needed to achieve
optimal food breakdown. Quality of Life Enhancement: Patients receiving modern prosthodontic
treatments reported a greater reduction in OHIP-14 scores, indicating a higher satisfaction and
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
310
improved quality of life. Statistical Significance: The differences in masticatory function
parameters and quality of life outcomes between modern and conventional methods were
statistically significant (p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION
Interpretation of Findings - The results of this study support the hypothesis that modern
prosthodontic methods yield superior outcomes compared with conventional techniques. The
significantly higher bite force and improved mixing ability suggest that implant-supported
prostheses and digitally designed dentures are more effective at restoring functional occlusion.
Moreover, the reduction in the number of chewing cycles needed demonstrates that the modern
methods facilitate a more efficient mastication process.
The enhanced masticatory function observed in Group A is consistent with the notion that
stability and precision in prosthesis design play pivotal roles in functional rehabilitation.
Implant-supported prostheses, for instance, provide a fixed anchor, reducing the movement
associated with conventional removable dentures. Digital techniques ensure precision in
fabrication, offering better fit, which likely contributes to a more uniform distribution of occlusal
forces. These factors collectively contribute to the observed increase in bite force and improved
performance during functional tests.
Comparison with Existing Literature - Previous studies have similarly shown that implant-
supported prostheses can lead to improved masticatory efficiency and patient satisfaction [6].
However, many of these studies were limited by sample size or did not employ a comparative
design against conventional methods. Our study expands on this div of research by directly
comparing modern prosthodontic techniques against traditional methodologies and quantitatively
evaluating both objective (bite force and masticatory efficiency) and subjective (OHIP-14 scores)
outcomes.
Our findings of improved quality of life are also corroborated by work highlighting the
psychosocial benefits of modern dental rehabilitation. The improvement in domains related to
functional limitation and psychological discomfort within the OHIP-14 underscores the critical
interplay between oral health and overall well-being. Patients with better-functioning prostheses
experience not only physical benefits but also an enhanced self-esteem and social interaction [7].
Clinical Implications - The data suggest that investment in modern prosthodontic technologies
can translate into clinically significant benefits for patients. Enhanced masticatory function is
linked with better nutritional status, potentially reducing the risk of systemic conditions
associated with poor mastication. Furthermore, the marked improvement in quality of life
emphasizes the importance of considering patient-reported outcomes when selecting a treatment
modality. Dental practitioners should weigh these functional and psychosocial benefits against
the higher initial costs associated with modern prosthodontic methods [8].
Limitations - Despite the significant findings, certain limitations must be acknowledged: Sample
Size: While 60 patients provided sufficient power to detect significant differences, larger multi-
center trials would be beneficial to validate these results. Follow-Up Duration: A 6-month
follow-up period, while useful for short-term evaluation, might not fully capture long-term
prosthesis survival and patient adaptation. Variability in Treatment Techniques: Even within the
“modern” category, differences exist between implant-supported fixed prostheses and digitally
designed removable dentures. Future studies might benefit from a more stratified analysis to
address such nuances.
Future Directions - Given the positive outcomes associated with modern prosthodontic methods,
further research should aim at: Long-Term Outcome Analysis: Investigating the durability and
long-term function of these prostheses over several years. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Evaluating the
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
311
economic implications in relation to improvements in masticatory function and quality of life.
Patient-Centered Outcomes: Expanding the use of comprehensive quality of life assessments and
integrating more detailed patient satisfaction surveys to capture broader psychosocial effects.
CONCLUSION
In summary, our study demonstrates that modern prosthodontic methods—encompassing
implant-supported fixed prostheses and digitally designed removable dentures—yield significant
improvements in both masticatory function and quality of life compared to conventional
prosthodontic treatments. The markedly higher bite force, enhanced mixing ability, and reduced
number of chewing cycles observed in the modern methods group clearly indicate a superior
restoration of oral function. These objective improvements not only ensure more efficient
mastication but also directly correlate with a meaningful enhancement in patients' overall quality
of life, as evidenced by significant reductions in OHIP-14 scores.
The clinical implications of these findings are multifaceted. Firstly, the adoption of advanced
prosthodontic technologies can lead to more predictable outcomes in oral rehabilitation by
ensuring better fit, stability, and distribution of occlusal forces—factors that are critically
important in restoring functional occlusion. Furthermore, improved masticatory efficiency is
associated with better nutritional intake and may contribute to the mitigation of systemic health
issues linked with impaired chewing function. Such benefits extend beyond the oral cavity,
potentially reducing the incidence of nutritional deficiencies and related health conditions,
particularly in the aging population [9].
From an economic standpoint, although the initial investment in modern prosthodontic
techniques is generally higher than that required for conventional methods, the long-term
advantages—including decreased maintenance needs and enhanced durability—suggest a
favorable cost-benefit ratio. In clinical practice, this translates into a reduction in overall
healthcare costs over time as the frequency of prosthesis adjustments and replacements
diminishes.
The psychosocial benefits identified in our study also underscore the broader impacts of
prosthodontic rehabilitation. Enhanced oral function contributes not only to improved eating
efficiency but also to higher self-esteem and better social interactions. These positive effects on
psychological well-being highlight the intrinsic connection between oral health and overall
quality of life, reinforcing the notion that successful dental rehabilitation is as much about
restoring function as it is about improving a patient's life experience.
Despite the robust findings, our study has certain limitations. The relatively short follow-up
period of six months may not capture the long-term sustainability of these outcomes, and the
sample size, while adequate for initial comparisons, calls for larger, multi-center studies to
confirm these results. Additionally, given the diversity within modern prosthodontic methods,
further research is warranted to analyze specific sub-techniques and their isolated impacts.
Future research should focus on extending the follow-up period to evaluate the durability of
modern prosthodontic rehabilitations over several years, conducting detailed cost-effectiveness
analyses, and incorporating more comprehensive patient-reported outcome measures. Such
studies would provide deeper insights into the long-term clinical and economic viability of these
advanced techniques and help in refining treatment protocols for a diverse patient population.
In conclusion, the integration of modern prosthodontic methods into routine dental care is
supported by the significant functional and psychosocial benefits demonstrated in our study.
These advancements represent a promising step forward in prosthodontic rehabilitation, offering
a pathway to improved nutritional status, better overall health outcomes, and enhanced quality of
life for patients. The continuous evolution of digital and implant technologies holds the potential
to further revolutionize the field, ultimately leading to the widespread adoption of these superior
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 3, 2025
312
treatment modalities in clinical practice.
References
1.
Spalj, S., Lajnert, V., & Ivankovic, L. (2014). The psychosocial impact of dental
aesthetics questionnaire—translation and cross-cultural validation in Croatia. Quality of Life
Research, 23(4), 1267–1271.
2.
Montero, J., López, J. F., Galindo, M. P., Vicente, P., & Bravo, M. (2009). Impact of
prosthodontic status on oral wellbeing: A cross-sectional cohort study. Journal of Oral
Rehabilitation 36, 592–600.
3.
Persic, S., Palac, A., Vojvodic, D., & Celebic, A. (2014). Initial effects of a treatment by
fixed partial dentures supported by mini dental implants from a patient’s point of view.
Collegium Antropologicum, 38(1), 275–278.
4.
Abdisalamovich, A.A., 2024. CHANGES IN THE ORAL CAVITY IN PATIENTS
USING PROTACRYL-BASED DENTURES. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 4(2-2),
pp.66-69.
5.
Abdisalamovich, A.A., 2024. FIXATION AND STABILIZATION IN PATIENTS
USING A FULLY REMOVABLE PLATE PROSTHESIS MADE OF SILICONE-BASED
PLASTIC. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 11(03), pp.97-99.
6.
Abdusalomovich, A.A., 2025. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
VARIOUS MATERIALS FOR FIXED DENTURES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
BIOCOMPATIBILITY
AND
DURABILITY.
Ethiopian
International
Journal
of
Multidisciplinary Research, 12(03), pp.119-125.
7.
Abdusalomovich,
Atakhanov
Azizbek.
"CLINICAL
AND
FUNCTIONAL
EVALUATION OF BRIDGE PROSTHETICS USING INTRA-OSSEOUS IMPLANTS."
Russian-Uzbekistan Conference. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2024.
8.
Ismoilov, B., 2025. OPTIMIZATION OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND
ESTHETIC OUTCOMES IN SELECTIVE CAVITY PREPARATION USING MODERN
COMPOSITE AND HYBRID RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT
MATERIALS. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 1(2), pp.1356-1359.
9.
Cordaro, L., di Torresanto, V. M., Petricevic, N., Jornet, P. R., & Torsello, F. (2013).
Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures
supported by four implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 24, 536–542.
