189
УДК: 612.311-008.6-092
https://doi.org/10.34920/min.2021-3.026
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FUNCTIONAL CHEWING TESTS UNDER
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
V.G. Galonskiy
1
, V.N. Chernov
2
, A.V. Gradoboev
3
, Y.S. Kiparisov
4
FSBEI HE Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after Prof. V.F.Voino-Yasenetsky,
Krasnoyarsk, Russia
1,2
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Department of Orthopedic,
Dentistry,Department of Dentistry IPE. Federal Research Center “Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center of
the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, Research Institute of Medical Problems
of the North, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
3
Dental clinic “Gelios”, Sharypovo, Russia
4
FSBOU VO South Ural State Medical University, Chelyabinsk, Russia 5 Department of Orthopedic
Dentistry and Orthodontics
Galonskiy Vladislav Gennadevich
– Doctor of Medical Sciences, professor of the Department of
Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry in Institute of Postgraduate
Education, leading researcher.
FSBEI HE Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after Prof.
V.F.Voino-Yasenetsky; address: Krasnoyarsk, 660022, Partizana Zheleznyaka St., 1, phone + 7
(391) 212-89-22; e-mail:
; Federal Research Center “Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center of
the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, Research Institute of Medical Problems
of the North; address: Krasnoyarsk, 660022, Partizana Zheleznyaka St.. 3G; e-mail:
Chernov Vladimir Nikolaevich
– Candidate of Medical Sciences, associate professor of the
Department of Orthopedic Dentistry. FSBEI HE Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after
Prof. V.F.Voino-Yasenetsky; address: Krasnoyarsk, 660022, Partizana Zheleznyaka St., 1, phone +
7 (391) 220-23-09; e-mail:
Gradoboev Anatoliy Vladimirivoch
– dentist. Dental clinic “Gelios”; address: Sharypovo,
662313, microdistrict 6, 25, room 2; tel.: +7 (39153) 23-00-3; e-mail:
ABSTRACT
Abstract:
The article presents the results of an experimental comparative assessment of the
main functional chewing tests using natural test products given in the Russian educational and
scientific-methodical literature. The positive and negative sides of each of them are revealed.
190
According to the results of the study, the most optimal test for determining the effectiveness of the
performed orthopedic dental treatment is the test according to S.E. Gelman (1932), which has the
necessary parameters for this.
Keywords:
chewing function, chewing efficiency, functional chewing test, orthopedic
dentistry, natural test chewing products.
Conflict of interest.
The authors declare no obvious and potential conflicts of interest
related to the publication of this article.
Relevance.
The restoration of chewing function is one of the fundamental criteria in
combination with the formation of the aesthetic optimum of the dentoalveolar apparatus when
assessing the effectiveness of orthopedic dental treatment. According to the educational-methodical
and scientific literature, the most informative methods for assessing chewing function are functional
chewing tests [2, 3, 5, 6, 7]. Classical tests characterizing a given functional parameter of the
dentoalveolar apparatus using natural test products given in the Russian special dental literature are:
chewing test according to I. S. Rubinov (1951) [8,9], test according to S. E. Gelman (1932) [1, 9]
and test according to R.S. Manly (1950) [4, 9].
The aim of the work
is to carry out a comparative assessment of the main functional
chewing samples using natural test products.
Materials and methods.
The presented work is based on the data obtained as a result of the
experimental-practical study, which consists in the clinical assessment of the main functional
chewing samples using natural test products, on male and female test subjects (volunteers). The
criteria for inclusion in the study group were: 1) Persons of the same sex, young age (in the range of
20-23 years); 2) Persons of the same weight category by gender (within the range of ± 15 kg); 3)
Persons with no defects in the dentition and the presence of orthopedic structures in the oral cavity;
4)
Persons with the presence of an orthognathic relationship of the dentition; 5) Persons with no
concomitant acute and chronic general somatic pathology; 6) At the time of the experiment, the last
meal should not exceed 2 hours, in order to level the natural feeling of hunger, which could
introduce errors in the research results.
The general quantitative and physiological characteristics of the subjects are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1
General quantitative and physiological characteristics of the subjects
Sex
Number
of persons
Age
(min–
max)
Weight, kg
(min–
max)
Height, cm
(min–
max)
Male
30
21–23
60–75
172–188
Female
30
19–23
50–62
161–182
Total:
60
19–23
50–75
161–188
Chewing test according to S.E. Gel'man (1932) envisaged the use of almond kernels as a test
product with a total weight of 5 grams, a chewing time of 50 seconds and a sieve opening diameter
to assess the crushing character of the test product 2.4 mm.
The chewing test according to I.S. Rubinov (1951) envisaged the use of a hazelnut (hazelnut)
weighing 0.8 grams as a test product, the chewing time before the appearance of the swallowing
reflex and the diameter of the holes of the diagnostic sieve of the study was similar to the previous
test.
191
The chewing test according to R. S. Manly (1950) involved the use of peanuts weighing 3
grams as a test product with a limited number of chewing movements in the amount of 20 and a hole
diameter of the diagnostic sieve of 2 mm.
Weighing of the test product was carried out on a jewelry electronic balance, with a
measurement accuracy of ± 0.01 grams, followed by a mathematical calculation, which has a similar
character for all three chewing samples, an indicator of chewing efficiency (X) according to the
formula:
x =
weight of the product passed through the sieves (in grams)
total weight of the test product (in grams)
× 100%
In the chewing test according to I.S. Rubinov (1951), the time (in seconds) before the
appearance of the swallowing reflex was additionally recorded.
Statistical processing of the obtained data was carried out as follows: on the basis of the
obtained absolute values, intensive and extensive coefficients, as well as average values, were
calculated. When determining the degree of reliability of the research results for relative and mean
values, the corresponding mean errors were calculated.
Research results.
Table 2 presents a summary of the results of evaluating chewing
efficiency among men and women using the studied chewing samples.
Table 2
Results of evaluating chewing efficiency using the studied chewing samples
Se
x
According to
Gelman S.E. (1932),
%
According to Rubinov
I.S. (1951)
According to
Manly R. S. (1950),
%
%
Time,
sek
Ma
le
95,2±0,8
100±0,
0
20±4,8
81,9±2,4
Fe
male
90,6±1,0
99,5±0,
2
12±1,9
67,0±2,4
Bot
h Sexes
92,9±1,1
99,8±0,
1
16±2,8
74,5±2,5
Conclusions:
1.
Indicators of chewing function in young people with intact dentition are in different ranges
with a characteristic similarity of values in each test: 1) Test according to SE Gelman (1932) - 92.9
± 1.1%; 2) Test according to I.S. Rubinov (1951) - 99.8 ± 0.1%; 3) Test according to R. S. Manly
(1950) - 74.5 ± 2.5%. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, the maximum
interval of differences was 14.9% in the sample according to R. S. Manly (1950). It should be noted
that there are significant differences in all three samples, the abstract-theoretical value, which in the
experimental conditions of an intact dental should have reached 100% of the chewing efficiency.
The maximum deviation was found in the sample according to R. S. Manly (1950), which amounted
to more than 25%.
192
2.
The results of the study showed that the diagnostic efficiency of the methods of all three
tests, for the objective clinical characteristics of the chewing function, raises doubts, and also made
it possible to formulate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the above chewing tests:
1)
The chewing test according to S.E. Gel'man (1932) had a significant weight of the test
material as advantages, which made it possible to confidently judge the state of the chewing
function of the subject, as well as the expression of chewing function as one parameter in
percentage, which makes it easy to carry out a comparative assessment chewing function,
both in one patient before and after treatment, and among a group of subjects. The negative
side of this test was the lack of a result of 100% chewing efficiency in subjects with an intact
dentition.
2)
The chewing test according to I.S. Rubinov (1951) had the results closest to 100%
chewing efficiency, however, it was also not devoid of negative aspects, which were the low
weight of the test product (0.8 grams) in comparison with other tests, which allows it is
doubtful to judge the state of the chewing function of the subject and the presence of two
indicators in reflecting the results of evaluating the chewing efficiency by the time of
chewing (in seconds) and directly chewing efficiency (in %).
3)
The positive aspects of the sample according to R.S. Manly can be considered the use
of an alternative instead of a temporary parameter - a fixed number of chewing movements -
20 and the presence of a difference in the obtained data by sex. The negative side of this test
is the low rate of chewing efficiency in an intact dentition, which turned out to be less than
expected by more than ¼.
3.
The use of natural test products for functional chewing tests is the most optimal, since the
diagnostic experiment maximally brings the load of the dentition to natural conditions. Among the
studied methods for assessing the chewing efficiency, the base test should be considered according
to S.E. Gelman (1932), which uses the largest test product weight among other samples (5 grams),
which makes it possible to realistically assess the functional ability of the chewing function of the
dentition, and the experimental values of which under intact dentition as close as possible to 100%
chewing efficiency.
Литература/References
1.
Gelman, S.E. (1932), Functional chewing test, Sovetskaya stomatologiya, Vol.11, no.9, pp.11-31(in Russian).
2.
Lebedenko, I. Yu., Ibragimov, T.I., Ryakhovskiy, A.N. (2003), Functional and instrumental research methods in
orthopedic dentistry, Moscow, OOO “Meditsinskoe informatsionnoe agentstvo”, 123 p. (in Russian).
3.
Lebedenko, I.Yu., Arutyunov, S.D., Ryakhovskiy, A.N. (Eds), (2016), Orthopedic dentistry: national guidelines, Moscow,
GEOTAR-Mediya, 824 p. (in Russian).
4.
Manly, R.S., Braley, L.C. (1950),
Masticatory performance and efficiency, J. Dent. Res., Vol. 29, no. 4., pp. 448–462.
5.
Mitin, N.E., Vasileva, T.A., Grishin, M.I. (2015), Modern methods for assessing chewing efficiency at the stages of
orthopedic treatment (literature review), Vestnik novykh meditsinskikh tekhnologiy. Elektronnoe izdanie, Vol.9, no.11,
p.43 (in Russian).
6.
Pocztaruk, R. L., Frasca, L. C., Rivaldo, E. G. et al. (2008), Protocol for production of a chewable for masticatory
function, Brazilian Oral Research, Vol. 22, no.4., pp. 305–310.
7.
Remizova, A.A., Akimova, M. Yu., Sevbitov, A.V. (2009), Simplified method for assessing chewing efficiency,
Parodontologiya, Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 65-68 (in Russian).
8.
Rubinov, I.S. (1951), Physiological tests taking into account the effectiveness of the act of chewing, Stomatologiya,
Vol.30, no. 1, pp.51-59. (in Russian).
9.
Tokarevich, I.V., Naumovich, Yu., Ya. (2009), Modern techniques for assessing chewing function, Sovremennaya
stomatologiya, no.3-4, pp. 14-19 (in Russian).
