The influence of partial implant-supported restorations on chewing side preference

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 38; no. 3; pp. 165 - 169
• Main Authors: NISSAN, J., BERMAN, O., GROSS, O., HAIM, B., CHAUSHU, G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2011
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Case-Control Studies; chewing; Chewing Gum; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dentistry; Denture, Partial; Ear - physiology; Female; Foot - physiology; Functional Laterality - physiology; Hand - physiology; Humans; implant-supported restoration; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - classification; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation; Male; Mandible - pathology; Mastication - physiology; Middle Aged; Motor Skills - physiology; Ocular Physiological Phenomena; Sex Factors; side preference; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02142.x

Summary  This study aimed at determining whether the individual’s chewing side preference is affected by local effects, produced by the presence of implant‐supported restorations. The test group included 81 patients with partial implant‐supported prosthesis. The control group included 108 subjects with no implants. All subjects went through a series of laterality tests for chewing and tasks (hand, foot, eye and ear) side preference. The preferred chewing side (PCS) was determined by observing the first stroke of the chewing cycle during chewing a gum. A positive and significant correlation between the chewing side preference and the subject’s sidedness during the different tasks was examined, by performing four Phi correlation tests for: chewing and handedness(r = 0·54; P < 0·001); chewing and footedness (r = 0·49; P < 0·001); chewing and eyedness (r = 0·65; P < 0·001) and chewing and earedness (r = 0·66, P < 0·001). Of the subjects, 78·3% preferred the right side for chewing, 19·1% preferred the left and 2·1% had no clear side preference. There was no statistical difference in chewing side preference distribution between genders. The distribution of chewing side preference was not significantly affected by the location of missing teeth or implants. In conclusion, implant placement will not affect PCS. Therefore, information on chewing side preference should be part of the routine preoperative examination for implant‐supported restorations to provide a better treatment plan in those cases that the implant‐supported restoration will be on the PCS.