Reliability between the two-colour chewing gum and the gummy-jelly tests used for the assessment of masticatory performance.

Nrecaj, Arnold; Takeshita, Lisa; Moreira, Yasmin Milhomens; Schimmel, Martin; Leles, Cláudio Rodrigues; Srinivasan, Murali (2024). Reliability between the two-colour chewing gum and the gummy-jelly tests used for the assessment of masticatory performance. Journal of oral rehabilitation, 51(6), pp. 954-961. Wiley 10.1111/joor.13665

Preview

Text J_of_Oral_Rehabilitation_-_2024_-_Nrecaj_-_Reliability_between_the_two_colour_chewing_gum_and_the_gummy_jelly_tests_used.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (692kB) | Preview

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of two methods used to assess masticatory performance and attempt to correlate them to achieve interchangeability between the methods.

METHODS

Twelve healthy dentate volunteers (men = 6, women = 6; mean age = 28.3 ± 4.1) with no known dental or medical pathologies were requested to participate in this study. Each participant completed three masticatory performance assessments, including two two-colour mixing-ability tests using chewing-gums (CG: gum#1 and gum#2) and the gummy-jelly (GJ) test. For each method, participants created five samples each (total = 15 measurements per participant, gum#1 = 5, gum#2 = 5, GJ = 5). For the gum#1 and gum#2 methods, the predetermined chewing cycles were fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cycles, and for the GJ method, the time duration was fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 s. The parameter measures were submitted to Z-score transformation, and Bland-Altman plots were generated to graphically compare the differences between two techniques against their means. Additionally, mountain plot was used to assess the cumulative distribution of measurement error between the methods.

RESULTS

A total of 180 measurements were recorded. There were significant correlations between the number of chewing cycles/chewing time and masticatory performance using the gum#1 (r = -.753; p < .001), gum#2 (r = -.838; p < .001) and GJ (r = .730). When all tests were considered together for each method, significant correlations were found (p < .001). A descriptive range of mean values aiming to produce reference value ranges for predictive purposes was achieved considering the interchangeably among the methods [CG = GJ (VoH-mg = dL): 10 cycle = 10 s: 0.329 = 110; 15 cycles = 15 s: 0.177 = 164; 20 cycles = 20 s: 0.130 = 205; 25 cycles = 25 s: 0.086 = 200; 30 cycles = 30 s: 0.077 = 267].

CONCLUSION

The strong correlations and high consistency between the two masticatory performance methods found in this study conclude that the two assessment methods are reliable and interchangeable. Further evaluations are warranted to arrive at a conversion formula for translation of the results between the two methods.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

2 since deposited on 22 Feb 2024
2 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item