Search

Abstract Background In Japan, oral hypofunction has been recognized as a disease since 2018. An alternative to occlusal force testing for assessing oral hypofunction is the evaluation of the number of natural teeth. Subjective masticatory function testing, which evaluates the ease or difficulty in chewing foods, is an effective alternative to occlusal force testing. However, no reference values have been established for this test. We determined the reference values of the subjective masticatory function test and evaluated its potential as a substitute for the number of natural teeth for assessing oral hypofunction. Methods The sample consisted of 184 older adults who visited the Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University Dental Hospital, from July 2018 to January 2020. The subjective masticatory function test (table for evaluation of chewing function in complete denture wearers [Chewing Score 20]) was performed using 20 foods. The occlusal force test and a receiver operating characteristic curve were used to determine the reference values for Chewing Score 20. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated and compared with the occlusal force test and the number of natural teeth. Results A significant correlation (r) was found between the occlusal force test and the Chewing Score 20 (r = 0.526, p

Abstract Background Screw breakage and loosening are the most common mechanical complications associated with implant treatment, and they may occur due to excess or inadequate screw tightening torque. When fastening and fixing the implant superstructure, screws are tightened using a torque wrench, which is essential for an accurate tightening force. However, the characteristics of the torque wrench have not been fully verified. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the factors affecting the torque with a focus on beam-type torque wrenches, which are the main types of wrenches. Methods The torque values generated by beam-type torque wrenches from eight manufacturers were measured using a torque gauge. To investigate the influence of the location of the beam relative to the scale, measurements were performed with a scale aligned with the trailing edge, center, and leading edge of the beam respectively. Additionally, measurements were taken at 90°, 60°, and 30° to examine the effect of the angle at which the examiner read the torque value. Under each condition, a single examiner applied the recommended torque to each manufacturer's screws five times in a clockwise direction. The average measured torque, standard deviation, bias, and coefficient of variation were calculated and compared accordingly. Results Wrenches from six manufacturers demonstrated excellent accuracy for measurements at the center of the beam (bias within ± 4%). For measurements at 90°, equipments from five manufacturers displayed excellent accuracy (bias within ± 7%), and seven showed excellent repeatability (coefficient of variation ≤ 2%). Conclusion The scale should be aligned with the center of the beam and read from 90° while using a torque wrench. The accuracy and repeatability torques generated by the wrenches differed according to the manufacturer, scale width, scale line width, beam width, and distance between the scale and beam center. Based on these results, we suggest that a torque wrench must be selected after determining the difference in the structure of the torque wrench.