The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Biting and Chewing in Overdentures, Full Dentures, and Natural Dentitions
Abstract
It has been suggested that the provision of dental implants can improve the oral function of subjects with severely resorbed mandibles, possibly restoring function to the level experienced by satisfied wearers of conventional complete dentures. Nevertheless, a quantitative comparison has never been made and can be drawn from the literature only with difficulty, since studies differ greatly in methodology. To make such a comparison, we measured bite force and chewing efficiency by using identical methods in subjects with overdentures, complete full dentures, and natural dentitions. Our results indicated that bite forces achieved with overdentures on dental implants were between those achieved with artificial and natural dentitions. Chewing efficiency was significantly greater than that of subjects with full dentures (low mandible), but was still lower than that of subjects with full dentures (high mandible) and overdentures on bare roots. Differences in the height of the mandible revealed significant differences in chewing efficiency between the two full-denture groups. Furthermore, subjects with a shortened dental arch exerted bite forces similar to those of subjects with a complete-natural dentition, but their chewing efficiency was limited due to the reduced occlusal area. For all groups combined, a significant correlation was found between maximum bite force and chewing efficiency. Nearly half of the variation in chewing efficiency was explained by bite force alone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A standardised static in vitro digestion method suitable for food – an international consensus
Minekus, M., Alminger, M., Alvito, P., Ballance, S., Bohn, T., Bourlieu, C., Carrière, F., Boutrou, R., Corredig, M., Dupont, D., et al. (2014) · Food Funct. · doi:10.1039/c3fo60702j · Cited by 5,824
Baijens, L. W., Clavé, P., Cras, P., Ekberg, O., Forster, A., Kolb, G., Leners, J. C., Masiero, S., Mateos del Nozal, J., Ortega, O., et al. (2016) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s107750 · Cited by 773
Determinants of masticatory performance in dentate adults
Hatch, J. P., Shinkai, R. S. A., Sakai, S., Rugh, J. D., & Paunovich, E. D. (2001) · Archives of Oral Biology · doi:10.1016/s0003-9969(01)00023-1 · Cited by 502
Particle size distribution in the food bolus after mastication of natural foods
Jalabert-Malbos, M.-L., Mishellany-Dutour, A., Woda, A., & Peyron, M.-A. (2007) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.01.010 · Cited by 351
Duong, H., Roccuzzo, A., Stähli, A., Salvi, G. E., Lang, N. P., & Sculean, A. (2022) · Periodontology 2000 · doi:10.1111/prd.12419 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Fontijn-Tekamp, F. A., Slagter, A. P., Van Der Bilt, A., Van 'T Hof, M. A., Witter, D. J., Kalk, W., & Jansen, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Dental Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1519-1524
- ISSN
- 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-0591
- OpenAlex
- W2138125097
- Cited by
- 825
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biting and Chewing in Overdentures, Full Dentures, and Natural Dentitions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00220345000790071501
- The paper
- Fontijn-Tekamp, F. A., Slagter, A. P., Van Der Bilt, A., Van 'T Hof, M. A., Witter, D. J., Kalk, W., & Jansen, J. A. (2000). Biting and Chewing in Overdentures, Full Dentures, and Natural Dentitions. Journal of Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790071501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.