Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Particle size distributions determined by optical scanning and by sieving in the assessment of masticatory performance of complete denture wearers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Standard procedure for the measurement of masticatory performance is the fractionated sieving of fragmented test food, which is substantially time consuming. The aim of this study was to introduce a less laborious, comparable, and valid technique based on scanning.

Methods

Fifty-six Optocal chewing samples were minced by wearers of complete dentures with 15 and 40 chewing strokes and analyzed by both a sieving and a scanning method. The sieving procedure was carried out using ten sieves (5.6, 4.0, 2.8, 2.0, 1.4, 1.0, 0.71, 0.5, 0.355, and 0.25 mm) and measuring the weight of the specific fractions. Scanning was performed with a flatbed scanner (Epson Expression1600Pro, Seiko Epson Corporation, Japan, 1,200 dpi). Scanned images underwent image analysis (ImageJ 1.42q, NIH, USA), which yielded descriptive parameters for each particle. Out of the 2D image, a volume was estimated for each particle. In order to receive a discrete particle size distribution, area–volume-conversion factors were determined. The cumulated weights yielded by either method were curve fitted with the Rosin–Rammler distribution (MATLAB, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, USA) to determine the median particle size X 50.

Results

The Rosin–Rammler distributions for sieving and scanning resembled each other and showed an excellent correlation in 15/40 chewing strokes (r = 0.995/r = 0.971, P < 0.01, Pearson’s correlation coefficient). The median particle sizes varied between 4.77/3.04 and 5.36/5.28 mm (mean 5.07/4.67) for scanning and 4.69/2.39 and 5.23/5.43 mm (mean 5.03/4.57) for sieving. On average, scanning overestimated the X 50 values by 1/2.4 %. The scanning method took 10 min per sample in contrast to 50 min for sieving.

Conclusion

Optical scanning is a valid method comparable to sieving.

Clinical relevance

The described method is feasible and appropriate for the measurement of masticatory performance of denture wearers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lucas PW, Luke DA (1983) Methods for analysing the breakdown of food in human mastication. Arch Oral Biol 28:813–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Bilt A et al (1987) A mathematical description of the comminution of food during mastication in man. Arch Oral Biol 32:579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Woda A et al (2006) Adaptation of healthy mastication to factors pertaining to the individual or to the food. Physiol Behav 89:28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Speksnijder CM et al (2009) Mixing ability test compared with a comminution test in persons with normal and compromised masticatory performance. Eur J Oral Sci 117:580–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Slagter AP et al (1992) Force-deformation properties of artificial and natural foods for testing chewing efficiency. J Prosthet Dent 68:790–799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shiau YY, Peng CC, Hsu CW (1999) Evaluation of biting performance with standardized test-foods. J Oral Rehabil 26:447–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kohyama K et al (2004) Effects of sample hardness on human chewing force: a model study using silicone rubber. Arch Oral Biol 49:805–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Slagter AP, Bosman F, Van der Bilt A (1993) Comminution of two artificial test foods by dentate and edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehabil 20:159–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ohara A et al (2003) A simplified sieve method for determining masticatory performance using hydrocolloid material. J Oral Rehabil 30:927–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Ali F, Heath MR, Wright PS (1999) Simplified method of estimating masticatory performance. J Oral Rehabil 26:678–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mowlana F, Heath MR, Auger D (1995) Automated optical scanning for rapid sizing of chewed food particles in masticatory tests. J Oral Rehabil 22:153–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mowlana F et al (1994) Assessment of chewing efficiency: a comparison of particle size distribution determined using optical scanning and sieving of almonds. J Oral Rehabil 21:545–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eberhard L et al (2012) Comparison of particle-size distributions determined by optical scanning and by sieving in the assessment of masticatory performance. J Oral Rehabil 39:338–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Slagter AP et al (1992) Comminution of food by complete-denture wearers. J Dent Res 71:380–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pocztaruk Rde L et al (2008) Protocol for production of a chewable material for masticatory function tests (Optocal - Brazilian version). Braz Oral Res 22:305–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Olthoff LW et al (1984) Distribution of particle sizes in food comminuted by human mastication. Arch Oral Biol 29:899–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kimoto K, Ogawa T, Garrett NR, Toyoda M (2004) Assessment of masticatory performance. Prosthodont Res Pract 3(2004):33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kayser AF, van der Hoeven JS (1977) Colorimetric determination of the masticatory performance. J Oral Rehabil 4:145–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gunne HS (1983) Masticatory efficiency. A new method for determination of the breakdown of masticated test material. Acta Odontol Scand 41:271–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakasima A, Higashi K, Ichinose M (1989) A new, simple and accurate method for evaluating masticatory ability. J Oral Rehabil 16:373–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kimoto K et al (2004) Assessment of masticatory performance. Prosthodont Res Pract 3:33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sato H et al (2003) A new and simple method for evaluating masticatory function using newly developed artificial test food. J Oral Rehabil 30:68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sato S et al (2003) Validity and reliability of a newly developed method for evaluating masticatory function using discriminant analysis. J Oral Rehabil 30:146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Bilt A et al (2010) Comparing masticatory performance and mixing ability. J Oral Rehabil 37:79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yoshida E, Fueki K, Igarashi Y (2007) Association between food mixing ability and mandibular movements during chewing of a wax cube. J Oral Rehabil 34:791–799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Igathinathane C et al (2009) Sieveless particle size distribution analysis of particulate materials through computer vision. Comput Electron Agric 66:147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Edlund J, Lamm CJ (1980) Masticatory efficiency. J Oral Rehabil 7:123–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Julien KC et al (1996) Normal masticatory performance in young adults and children. Arch Oral Biol 41:69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Robertson J et al (1984) Particle size analysis of soils—a comparison of dry and wet sieving techniques. Forensic Sci Int 24:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mowlana F et al (1994) Assessment of chewing efficiency: a comparison of particle size distribution determined using optical scanning and sieving of almonds. J Oral Rehabil 21:545–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peyron MA, Mishellany A, Woda A (2004) Particle size distribution of food boluses after mastication of six natural foods. J Dent Res 83:578–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fontijn-Tekamp FA et al (2000) Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions. J Dent Res 79:1519–1524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Lydia Eberhard, Sophie Schneider, Constantin Eiffler, Stefanie Kappel & Nikolaos Nikitas Giannakopoulos

Authors
  1. Lydia Eberhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantin Eiffler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefanie Kappel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaos Nikitas Giannakopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lydia Eberhard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eberhard, L., Schneider, S., Eiffler, C. et al. Particle size distributions determined by optical scanning and by sieving in the assessment of masticatory performance of complete denture wearers. Clin Oral Invest 19, 429–436 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1266-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1266-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation