Masticatory performance in oral function assessment: Alternative methods. (2nd February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Imamura, Yoshiki; Chebib, Najla; Ohta, Midori; Mojon, Philippe; Schulte‐Eickhoff, Regina Maria; Schimmel, Martin; Graf, Christophe; Sato, Yuji; Müller, Frauke
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral rehabilitation. Volume 50:Number 5(2023)
• Page Start: 383
• Page End: 391
• Publication Date: 2023-02-02
• Subjects: Gluco sensor -- hue‐check gum -- masticatory function check gum -- oral hypofunction; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/joor.13421
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-182X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Masticatory function declines with age or disease, implicating a poor chewing efficiency and an often‐unconscious change for a less healthy, yet easy to chew diet. Timely screening of masticatory function may foster an early‐onset diagnosis and potential treatment. The aim of this study was to compare alternative diagnostic tools for masticatory function to a Jelly‐scan test. Materials and Methods: Patients aged 70 years and older who were hospitalised for rehabilitation were recruited for this study. A total of four different tests for masticatory function were administered. The Japanese Society of Gerodontology glucose extraction test (Jelly‐scan) was used as reference to compare a colour‐changing gum test (Gum1‐colour) as well as a mixing ability test with a visual (Gum2‐visual) and opto‐electronical (Gum2‐digital) analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to establish the discriminative value, kappa‐values were used to estimate individual agreements and correlations were verified using Spearman's tests. Results: Sixty‐one patients (Men n = 23, Women n = 38) aged 82.4 ± 6.8 years participated in the experiments. The average number of natural teeth was 16.5 ± 10.5, 34.4% of the participants wore removable dentures. For all tests, the sum of sensitivity and specificity was >150%. All test correlated with Jelly‐scan (absolute Rho >0.5). With Jelly‐scan 51 participants (83.6%) were diagnosed with "masticatory hypofunction". After reducing the cut‐off value of the test from 100 mg/dL to 65 mg/dL, only 33 participants (54%) fulfilled the diagnosis. This post‐hoc analysis increased the sensitivity of the Gum2‐tests and the agreement to kappa >0.5 for all three tests. Conclusion: All three tests can be considered useful screening alternatives. In its original version, Jelly‐scan may tend to over‐diagnose masticatory hypofunction, hence a novel cut‐off with better agreement between tests is suggested. Abstract : Timely screening of a decline in masticatory function may foster an early‐onset diagnosis and potential treatment. This clinical study confirms in 61 geriatric patients the equivalence of four different tests for mastication, of which two are easy to perform and may even be used by patients at home.