Maximum Bite Force of Edentulous Patients before and after Dental Implant Rehabilitation: Long‐Term Follow‐Up and Facial Type Influence

Purpose (1) To evaluate patients’ long‐term maximum bite force (MBF) after rehabilitation with mandibular implant‐supported prosthesis, (2) to assess the influence of facial pattern in MBF, and (3) to evaluate the relation between the dominant chewing side and MBF. Materials and Methods Twenty‐nine...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of prosthodontics 2018-07, Vol.27 (6), p.523-527
Main Authors: Melo, Ana Cláudia M., Ledra, Ingrid M., Vieira, Rogéria A., Coró, Edivaldo R., Sartori, Ivete Aparecida de M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bite Force
Biting
Cephalometry
Chewing
Dental Implantation, Endosseous
Dental implants
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Dental prosthetics
Dental restorative materials
Dentistry
Denture, Complete
Face - pathology
facial type
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Mandible
maximum bite force
Middle Aged
Mouth, Edentulous - pathology
Mouth, Edentulous - surgery
Oral rehabilitation
Radiography
Rehabilitation
Statistical analysis
Transplants & implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose (1) To evaluate patients’ long‐term maximum bite force (MBF) after rehabilitation with mandibular implant‐supported prosthesis, (2) to assess the influence of facial pattern in MBF, and (3) to evaluate the relation between the dominant chewing side and MBF. Materials and Methods Twenty‐nine patients were selected. Pre‐ (T0) and immediate post‐rehabilitation (T1) data of MBF were collected. In a follow‐up visit 3 to 5 years after rehabilitation (T2), 24 patients participated. The patients were asked about dominant chewing side, and facial pattern was obtained by the initial lateral radiographs. Results There was statistically significant increase in MBF in T1 – T0 = 5.4 ± 4.3 kgf, T2 – T1 = 5.5 ± 6.0 kgf. There was no statistically significant difference in MBF considering facial type, brachyfacial (T0 = 4.4, T1 = 10.7, T2 = 17.6 kgf), mesofacial (T0 = 4.1, T1 = 9.7, T2 = 16.5 kgf), and dolichofacial (T0 = 3.4, T1 = 7.9, T2 = 12.6 kgf). Conclusions There was no statistically significant relation between MBF and the dominant chewing side. It can be concluded that mandibular rehabilitation with dental implants improves MBF independent of the facial pattern and dominant chewing side.
ISSN:1059-941X
1532-849X
DOI:10.1111/jopr.12544