Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
1.
Thumati RP, Thumati P, Kerstein RB, Radke J. Improvements in Appearance and Masticatory Function After Full Mouth Restorations with Implant-supported Prostheses. Adv Dent Tech. Published online September 30, 2024:1-18.
Download all (18)
  • Figure 1. A failing dental health subject requiring complete extraction and tooth replacements from advanced periondotal disease.
  • Figure 2. The left side Maximum Intercuspation with excessively flared anterior teeth, absent maxillary left premolars and 1st and 2nd molars, with widespread recession and calculus present in the lower anterior region.
  • Figure 3. The right side Maximum Intercuspation with absent mandibular right molars, marked lower anterior recession, abfracted maxillary premolar roots, and excessively flared anterior teeth.
  • Figure 4a. A preoperative panoramic radiograph showing the severe dental breakdown necessitating complete extraction, which was followed by total implant rehabilitation.
  • Figure 4b. Implant placement surgery being performed on the mandibular arch with some lower teeth intact before extraction.
  • Figure 5. Maxillary and mandibular metal frameworks were verified for their passive and stable fit. Teeth were then set in wax for try in (Figure 6).
  • Figure 6. The wax tooth try in and jaw relationship verification step.
  • Figure 7a. The opposing final hybrids at insertion. The MIP appears well interdigitated.
  • Figure 7b. A naturally appearing smile view of the new hybrid restorations in place.
  • Figure 8. Magnet placement in the labial vestibule below maxillary incisor contact (A). The JT-3D sensor array properly placed on a subject (B).
  • Figure 9. The Mastication Sweep View of vertical, anteroposterior and lateral gum chewing. The Green vertical lines indicate the onset of opening, the dashed cyan vertical lines indicate the Turning Points (the most open point within each cycle) and the red-orange vertical lines indicate the end of each closure (when the maximum bolus crush occurred per cycle). Cycle 11 fell more than 2 standard deviations away from the mean ACP of the whole trace, and was automatically excluded from the ACP.
  • Figure 10. The Average Chewing Pattern of one subject (red (opening) and blue (closing) colored lines) compared to the mean normal patterns scaled to this subject (black oval outlines). The closer the subjects’ shapes matched the black norms, the more ideal was the chewing movement pattern.
  • Figure 11. Summary View of the 21 masticatory movement parameters from the chewing cycles displayed in Figure 10.
  • Figure 12. The Average Chewing Cycle view of the rectified averaged muscle activity with all channels superimposed. which detected aberrant activity in one or more muscles (Cycle 11). The green vertical lines indicate the onset of opening, the cyan dashed line indicate the Turning Point at maximum opening and the orange vertical lines indicate the End of Closure.
  • Figure 13. The Average Chewing Cycle (ACC) reveals the hierarchy of masseter and anterior temporalis muscle activity during chewing.
  • Figure 14. The ACC Summary provides objective measurements and calculated values to describe how muscles perform during chewing.
  • Figure 15. One subject’s as installed but unadjusted right excursive T-Scan/BioEMG III data, showing significant excursive hyperactivity after the MIP clench to the right of Line C (upper right pane). EMG values of each muscle can be seen in the right middle pane (TA-R= 105.5 μv), (TA-L = 30.3 μv), (MM-R = 44.7 μv), (MM-L = 26.1 μv). In the T-Scan data (left pane) implants #sI-3 and I-14 were under overload warning, and the excursive COF trajectory moved directly towards tooth #4, indicating the presence of a working side group function with prolonged right Disclusion Time = 2.10 seconds (T-Scan timing table).
  • Figure 16. The same subject’s post-T-Scan adjusted right excursive T-Scan/BioEMG III data with markedly less excursive hyperactivity after the MIP clench to the right of Line C compared to Figure 15 in the upper and middle right panes (TA-R = 71.3 μv; TA-L = 17.4 μv; MM-R = 21.6 μv; MM-L = 29.4 μv). In the adjusted T-Scan data (left pane) no implants are under overload warning, and the excursive COF trajectory moved directly towards implant #I-6, indicating there was anterior guidance with short right Disclusion Time = 0.59 seconds (T-Scan timing table).

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the success of replacing missing teeth with implants, very little literature has assessed how patients function with fully implant-supported restorations. The two main objectives of complete implant-supported restorations are to make cosmetic improvements and masticatory function improvements. This study compared pre and post implant-restored mastication using objective chewing function measurements obtained from a series of biometric occlusal technologies.

Methods

Forty subjects were selected for treatment by being edentulous, or by requiring total extractions from advanced dental and periodontal breakdown. Prior to and after complete implant-supported maxillary and mandibular restorative treatment, all subjects underwent incisor-point chewing motion jaw tracking, and recorded muscle activity level changes while chewing a soft and hard bolus. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test analyzed the Averaged Chewing Patterns (ACP) and the Disclusion Times changes of the final implant prostheses, while the Student’s t-test analyzed the chewing muscles’ Averaged Chewing Cycles (ACC). A post-implant reconstruction patient satisfaction survey was also completed by all subjects.

Results

With complete implant-supported restorations installed, the Averaged Chewing Patterns (ACP) and the Averaged Chewing Cycles (ACC) both improved significantly towards normal function for the entire subject group (p < 0.05). A statistically significant reduction was found in the subjects expended muscular chewing effort (p < 0.00001). The changes in the Disclusion Times from post-restoration computer-guided insertion occlusal adjustments were also significant (p < 0.00001). And the subject groups’ satisfaction level was very high (Median Group Satisfaction = 97%), with 9 out of the 10 questions’ medians scored at the highest level of satisfaction.

Conclusion

Digitally fabricated implant-supported prostheses improved patient aesthetics and masticatory function, when installed with computer-guided force and time-controlling insertion occlusal adjustments. This led to enhanced patient satisfaction with both the implant treatment process and the functional prosthetic outcome.

See the appendix for a Spanish translation of this article’s abstract.

INTRODUCTION

Complete Implant reconstruction has become both common place and reasonably successful due to Osteointegration predictability, bone grafting techniques, and implant part manufacturing precision. Restorative success has been aided with the use of strong materials like Zirconia, and where needed because of extensive tissue loss, forgiving materials that comprise hybrid restorations. Despite the success of replacing missing teeth with implants, very little literature has assessed how patients function with fully implant-supported restorations, like when All-on-6 prostheses oppose each other.

Within the dental literature most chewing evaluations have been performed with particle size analyses, and significantly less with jaw tracking technologies that can measure chewing mandibular motion patterns. Particle size changes from chewing are somewhat interesting, but do not provide clinically relevant assessments of chewing muscular performance, chewing motion mechanics, or the effort expended muscularly to perform effective chewing. Further, particle size research is messy and solely reports on the end result of chewing but does not evaluate the chewing motion process in any measurable way.1,2

Other methods to assess chewing performance include EMG activity,3 the number of cycles required for mixing colored gum together,4 the cycle time, the Average Chewing Pattern shape, and Jerkiness.5–7 Importantly, using the biometrically derived normal Average Chewing Pattern (ACP) and the normal Average Chewing Cycle (ACC) both establish clinical baselines for evaluating masticatory function. The ACP reveals the shape, timing, variability, and smoothness of an individual’s chewing movements, while the ACC reveals the muscular hierarchy, any muscular variability, the presence of muscular Silent Periods (SP), the masseter and temporalis muscles’ timing during bolus crush, and the effort expended by individual muscles to cyclically masticate.5–7

Two recent studies involving prosthodontic tooth replacements both reported mastication measured with incisor point jaw tracking (EGN) was statistically improved when missing teeth were replaced.8,9 One study evaluated a treatment partial denture’s effect on the mastication of 38 subjects who were missing molars and premolars. The Opening Time, Occlusal Time, the Turning Point, the Terminal Chewing Position, the Velocity of Chewing, the Opening and Closing Angles, and the Jerkiness in Closing were all found to be significantly changed with a treatment partial (p < 0.05). And several muscles showed significant reductions in both timing and variability (p < 0.05).8 In the 2nd study, 30 fixed prosthodontic patients chewed gum and a hard bolus to determine changes in masticatory functional parameters towards or away from normal control group chewing values (a = 0.05). The authors reported that the installed prostheses mostly changed the mastication parameters closer to normative reference values.9

However, mastication studies of complete implant-supported restorations are nonexistent, despite the extensive emphasis restorative dentistry has placed on implant prosthetics over the last 40 years. No knowledge has been put forth as to how patients chew after transitioning from a broken-down dentition requiring complete extraction into a complete fixed-in-place implant reconstruction. Therefore, the Specific Aims of this study were to use 3-dimensional incisor point jaw tracking (Electrognathography EGN), mastication motion software, and electromyography (EMG) to assess chewing mechanics, muscle hierarchy, and the muscular effort expended when broken down dentition patients chewed both gum and a hard bolus, compared to when the same patients chewed with complete implant-supported, fixed-in-place restorations.

METHODS & MATERIALS

In an ongoing clinical practice of Prosthodontics, patients who presented with a failing dentition, advanced periodontal disease, and hypermobility of many teeth requiring full mouth extraction who elected to undergo fixed implant complete reconstruction were recruited for the study (See Figures 1 - 4a & 4b)

Close-up of a person's teeth Description automatically generated
Figure 1.A failing dental health subject requiring complete extraction and tooth replacements from advanced periondotal disease.
Close-up of teeth Description automatically generated
Figure 2.The left side Maximum Intercuspation with excessively flared anterior teeth, absent maxillary left premolars and 1st and 2nd molars, with widespread recession and calculus present in the lower anterior region.
Close-up of teeth Description automatically generated
Figure 3.The right side Maximum Intercuspation with absent mandibular right molars, marked lower anterior recession, abfracted maxillary premolar roots, and excessively flared anterior teeth.
X-ray of a human jaw Description automatically generated
Figure 4a.A preoperative panoramic radiograph showing the severe dental breakdown necessitating complete extraction, which was followed by total implant rehabilitation.
Close-up of teeth and teeth in a mouth Description automatically generated
Figure 4b.Implant placement surgery being performed on the mandibular arch with some lower teeth intact before extraction.

After 3-4 months, the transitional prostheses were changed into fixed-in-place hybrid prostheses (Figures 5-7).

Close-up of a person's mouth with metal braces Description automatically generated
Figure 5.Maxillary and mandibular metal frameworks were verified for their passive and stable fit. Teeth were then set in wax for try in (Figure 6).
Close-up of a person's teeth Description automatically generated
Figure 6.The wax tooth try in and jaw relationship verification step.
Close-up of a human teeth Description automatically generated
Figure 7a.The opposing final hybrids at insertion. The MIP appears well interdigitated.
A person with a blue rectangle over his eyes Description automatically generated
Figure 7b.A naturally appearing smile view of the new hybrid restorations in place.

All included subjects were measured with 3 biometric chewing technologies (EGN and EMG (Bioresearch Assoc., Milwaukee, WI, USA); T-Scan 10 Novus (Tekscan, Inc., Norwood, MA, USA)) pre and post restoration. Disclusion Time Reduction (DTR)10 computer-guided occlusal adjustments were performed on the final hybrid prostheses at their insertion.

Inclusion Criteria

  • Subjects that were either already edentulous or scheduled for total extractions, with all teeth to be replaced with All-on-6 maxillary and mandibular opposing complete implant rehabilitations

  • Subjects who agreed to accept full mouth rehabilitation with immediately loaded implant restorations

Exclusion Criteria

  • Subjects with medical conditions that prohibited needed surgical procedures and full mouth rehabilitation

  • Subjects that declined to allow their chewing data, their muscle data, and their occlusal function data to be used in a research project.

  • Patients with intact dentitions that did not require complete extractions

Ultimately, forty subjects (28 Males; 12 females) were selected for treatment from a continuous pool of prospective patients. Their pre-treatment mastication and Disclusion Time measurements were then compared to their post-treatment and post T-Scan-guided adjustment measurements using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.

All participating subjects were informed that their data sets for chewing, muscle, and occlusal function would be used in a research project. Further, all extractions, bone grafts, implant placements and restorative procedures followed the recommendations of the 64th General Assembly of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2013). All employed restorative procedures were standard, non-experimental prosthodontic techniques.

Electrognathography (EGN) Recording Procedure

Each subject was recorded with an Electrognathographic jaw tracker while chewing gum on their left and right sides, which was repeated with a hard bolus (Peanut Chikki). Four chewing sequences with both mediums were recorded prior to any treatment being rendered. After the completion of the All-on-6 implant and restorative treatment, the same four chewing sequences were re-recorded with both chewing mediums. Mean values and standard deviations of all mastication parameters were calculated for each sequence, and compared between pre-treatment to post treatment (Alpha = p < 0.05).

During chewing, the movement of the incisor-point was captured by a magnet adhered to the lower incisors in the labial vestibule, placed low enough to avoid making any maxillary incisor contact. A magnetic sensing array (JT-3D, BioResearch Associates, Inc. Milwaukee, WI, USA) recorded the movements of the magnet vertically, anteroposteriorly, and laterally (Figure 8).

A close-up of a person's face Description automatically generated
Figure 8.Magnet placement in the labial vestibule below maxillary incisor contact (A). The JT-3D sensor array properly placed on a subject (B).

The 3-dimensional chewing data was first displayed as individual channels, but after the sequence was accepted, the displayed data was segmented into individual cycles (Figure 9).

A graph of a graph showing different colored lines Description automatically generated with medium confidence
Figure 9.The Mastication Sweep View of vertical, anteroposterior and lateral gum chewing. The Green vertical lines indicate the onset of opening, the dashed cyan vertical lines indicate the Turning Points (the most open point within each cycle) and the red-orange vertical lines indicate the end of each closure (when the maximum bolus crush occurred per cycle). Cycle 11 fell more than 2 standard deviations away from the mean ACP of the whole trace, and was automatically excluded from the ACP.

The BioPAK software (BioResearch Assoc., Milwaukee, WI, USA) calculated the Average Chewing Pattern (ACP) of the first 15 clean chewing cycles (Figures 10 and 11).5 Each subject’s ACP was automatically compared graphically with the mean normal frontal, sagittal, horizontal and velocity motion patterns (the black ovals visible in each dimension), which are scaled to the individual subject’s vertical dimension.

A diagram of a person's body Description automatically generated
Figure 10.The Average Chewing Pattern of one subject (red (opening) and blue (closing) colored lines) compared to the mean normal patterns scaled to this subject (black oval outlines). The closer the subjects’ shapes matched the black norms, the more ideal was the chewing movement pattern.
A close-up of a medical report Description automatically generated
Figure 11.Summary View of the 21 masticatory movement parameters from the chewing cycles displayed in Figure 10.

Muscle Activities Recorded During the EGN Recordings

Simultaneously with the chewing recordings, the bilateral masseter and anterior temporalis muscles were recorded with the BioEMG III Electromyograph (BioResearch Associates, Inc. Milwaukee, WI, USA). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each muscle parameter and compared from pre-treatment to post treatment using the Student’s t test.

The calculated muscle function chewing parameters were:

  1. Mean Area – The rms amplitude of each muscle integrated and averaged during each cycle

  2. Coefficient of Variation – The standard deviation divided by the mean, which indicates muscle variability

  3. The Peak Amplitude – which routinely occurs during the closure to crush the bolus

  4. Time To Peak Amplitude – The time required to reach the highest value in microvolts during a cycle

  5. Time to 50 % of Peak Amplitude - The time required to reach ½ the highest value in microvolts during a cycle

The recorded EMG data was displayed in the EMG RMS Sweep window as rectified averaged data, with each muscle’s individual channel superimposed (Figure 12). With healthy mastication, all 4 muscles should be functioning synchronously, but in Figure 12, cycle 11 both temporalis muscles deviated during the early part of closure (red lines). This cycle was rejected as an outlier (more than 2 standard deviations away from the mean of the sequence).

A graph showing a number of different colored lines Description automatically generated with medium confidence
Figure 12.The Average Chewing Cycle view of the rectified averaged muscle activity with all channels superimposed. which detected aberrant activity in one or more muscles (Cycle 11). The green vertical lines indicate the onset of opening, the cyan dashed line indicate the Turning Point at maximum opening and the orange vertical lines indicate the End of Closure.

The Average Chewing Cycle (ACC) revealed the hierarchy of muscle activity (Figure 13). In normal functioning subjects the working masseter produces the highest peak activity, followed by the working anterior temporalis, the non-working anterior temporalis and lastly the non-working masseter. The working masseter provides the most activity, often producing 40% of the chewing activity, while the anterior temporalis produces 30%, the non-working anterior temporalis 20%, and the non-working masseter only about 10%. By regularly switching sides a normal subject can chew indefinitely with minimal muscle fatigue. Subjects with a malocclusion often alter their muscle pattern to adapt to the current conditions. And although successful adaptation can occur without symptoms, muscular symptoms are often associated with altered muscle hierarchy.

A diagram of a normal distribution Description automatically generated
Figure 13.The Average Chewing Cycle (ACC) reveals the hierarchy of masseter and anterior temporalis muscle activity during chewing.

The calculated parameters describe the muscle activities that aid in understanding masticatory dysfunction (Figure 14). The Mean Area indicates how much each muscle is contributing to the chewing process. The SD (standard deviation of the mean) reveals any excessive variability. The CV (coefficient of variation) relates the SD to the Mean and is a better indicator of excess variability (with a normal target value of CV > 0.30). The Peak Amplitude (the maximum activity associated with the bolus crush) and its’ SD (standard deviation of the peak Amplitude), indicate chewing variability. An increased Mean Area and a larger Peak Amplitude together with a reduced coefficient of variation indicates improved masticatory muscle function.9

A table with numbers and letters Description automatically generated
Figure 14.The ACC Summary provides objective measurements and calculated values to describe how muscles perform during chewing.

The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was applied to the 21 masticatory movement parameters of not normally distributed data (determined by the Cramer-von Mises test). And, because masticatory muscle function is synchronous among all four chewing muscles, the muscles were tested together with the Student’s Paired t-test, after verifying the normality of the muscle data (Cramer-von Mises test). Lastly, during the restorative insertion the unadjusted but installed Disclusion Time measurements were compared to the computer-guided and adjusted Disclusion Times, using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.

Post Treatment Satisfaction Survey

After restorative completion, a 10-question 4-level survey was conducted to assess all subjects’ level of satisfaction. The questions related to timeliness and the meeting of expectations were scored with 4 levels of satisfaction (0 to 3). Median scores and the mean percent of the maximum score (= 3) were calculated from the entire group’s responses.

RESULTS

Kinematics

9 masticatory movement parameters changed significantly after the implant restorative treatment was finalized (p < 0.05). See Tables 1 and 2.

  1. Turning Point - Antero-posterior

  2. Turning Point - Antero-posterior Standard Deviation

  3. Turning Point - Lateral Standard Deviation

  4. Terminal Chewing Position – Vertical Standard Deviation

  5. Terminal Chewing Position – Antero-posterior

  6. Maximum Lateral Width

  7. Maximum Lateral Width - Standard Deviation

  8. Maximum Opening Velocity

  9. Maximum Closing Velocity

In addition, 4 other parameters suggested there was a trend towards significance (p < 0.01).

  1. Opening Time

  2. Opening Jerkiness

  3. Opening Jerkiness - Standard Deviation

  4. Turning Pont - Lateral

For brevity, only the data from right-sided gum chewing and left-sided hard bolus chewing are presented. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank test of soft gum chewing produced significant changes in 7 mastication parameters (p < 0.05), with trends towards significance in 3 more parameters (p < 0.10). One case was removed from the group due to missing data. See Table 1.

Table 1.7 group soft gum chewing parameters changed significantly towards normalcy, after delivery and computer-guided adjustment of all prostheses. Red highlight = significant change; Green highlight = non-significance.
Gum Right Opening Time (milliseconds) Turning Point A/P (millimeters) TP-A/P Std. Dev. (millimeters) TCP-V Std. Dev. (millimeters) TCP A/P (millimeters)
Mean pre-Treatment 288 2 1.3 0.5 0.2
Standard Deviation 139 4.6 1.0 0.4 2.1
Wilcoxon p < 0.0793 0.0089 0.0050 0.0018 0.0337
Mean post-treatment 254 5.1 2.0 1.5 1
Standard Deviation 91 7.0 1.7 1.7 1.5
n = 39 Maximum Lateral Width (millimeters) Maximum Lateral Width SD (millimeters) Maximum Opening Velocity (mm/second) Maximum Closing Velocity (mm/second) Opening Jerkiness (mm/sec3)
Mean pre-Treatment 4.1 1.3 90 88 4.5
Standard Deviation 1.5 0.4 52 54 2.3
Wilcoxon p < 0.0516 0.0352 0.0011 0.0031 0.0682
Mean post-treatment 5 1.5 118 113 3.9
Standard Deviation 2.7 0.8 51 58 1.5
Std. Dev. = Standard deviation, A/P = anteroposterior, TCP = Terminal Chewing Position
Table 2.The hard bolus affected different parameters than did the soft bolus, but the overall changes were similar. The trending parameters did not achieve significance. Red highlight = significant change; Green highlight = non-significance.
Hard Bolus Left Turning Point Ant./Post (mm) Turning Point Ant./Post Std. Dev. Turning Point Lateral (mm) Turning Point Lateral Std. Dev. Maximum Lateral Width (mm)
Mean pre-Treatment 3.8 1.6 0.1 1.3 4.4
Standard Deviation 5.1 0.8 2.8 0.5 1.5
Wilcoxon S-R test p < 0.0021 0.0020 0.0565 0.0126 0.0207
Mean post-treatment 6.5 2.2 1.2 1.6 5.7
Standard Deviation 5.6 1.3 3.5 0.6 3.0
n = 38 Maximum Lateral Width Std. Dev. Maximum Opening Velocity (mm/sec) Maximum Closing Velocity (mm/sec) Opening Jerkiness (mm/sec3) Opening Jerkiness Std. Dev.
Mean pre-Treatment 1.3 106 110 3.9 2.5
Standard Deviation 0.5 53 51 3.7 4.2
Wilcoxon S-R test p < 0.0089 0.0262 0.0193 0.0807 0.0559
Mean post-treatment 1.9 120 124 3 1.3
Standard Deviation 0.9 50 47 1.4 0.9
Std. Dev. = Standard deviation, mm = millimeters, mm/sec = millimeters/second

The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test of hard bolus chewing (Peanut Chikki) indicated significant improvements in 7 of 10 post treatment parameters (p < 0.05). 3 other parameters trended towards improvement (p < 0.10). Two cases were removed due to missing data.

Muscle Activity

Concurrent with the improved chewing movements, significant changes occurred in the muscle activities post treatment. Within the Right-side Gum chewing data, 3 of the 5 muscle parameters were significantly changed, indicating the chewing motion improvements resulted from changed muscle activities (p < 0.05). See Table 3.

Table 3.The Student’s t test confirmed the normality of the data with the Cramer-von Mises assessment Red highlight = significant change.
Gum Right Mean Area (microvolt-seconds) Coefficient of Variation Peak Amplitude (milliseconds) Time to Peak Time to 50 % of Peak
EMG pre-treatment mean 36.3 0.441 120 524 329
Standard Deviation 59.5 0.25 154 826 653
t-test p < 0.00000 0.00000 0.217 0.1437 0.0392
EMG post-treatment mean 60 0.396 135 452 237
Standard Deviation 92 0.25 151 358 150

The left-sided Hard Bolus data revealed significant changes in 4 of the 5 muscular parameters (p < 0.05) with a trend towards significance in the 5th parameter (p < 0.10). As the hard bolus required more mastication muscular effort, greater changes in the muscle function were seen post treatment. See Table 4.

Table 4.The Student’s t test revealed the hard bolus elicited significant changes in the muscle efforts for the Peak Amplitude and the Time to Peak amplitude. Red highlight = significant change; Green highlight = trend
Hard Bolus Left Mean Area (microvolt-seconds) Coefficient of Variation Peak Amplitude (milliseconds) Time to Peak Time to 50 % of Peak
EMG pre-treatment mean 36 0.452 118 407 239
Standard Deviation 47.1 0.262 127 198.6 154.6
t test p < 0.0021 0.0002 0.0185 0.0212 0.0864
EMG post-treatment mean 56 0.356 149 484 275
Standard Deviation 76.4 0.235 142 433 314

There was a statistically significant reduction in the muscular effort expended by the subjects as they chewed. The contraction durations per muscle during excursions was shorter after the restorations were placed and occlusally adjusted with the T-Scan/EMG (See Table 5).

Table 5.The muscular effort expended in chewing prior to and after treatment was statistically different. Significant reductions in muscular effort expended was seen in all muscles. Red highlight = significant change.
Reduction in Muscle Effort EMG Muscle Activity from C to D
TA-R μVsec TA-L μVsec MM-R μVsec MM-L μVsec
Mean Pre-Treatment 76.8 102.3 79.9 83.0
Standard Deviation 104.48 125.64 100.88 123.52
Coefficient of Variation 1.36 1.23 1.26 1.49
Wilcoxon Signed-rank test p < 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001
Mean Post Treatment 34.4 38.3 30.9 28.2
Standard Deviation 40.66 48.84 30.74 26.17
Coefficient of Variation 1.18 1.28 0.99 0.93
μVsec = microvolts x seconds, TA = anterior temporalis, MM = superficial masseter

Prosthetic Occlusal Contact Finishing

The final step in the delivery of the implant-supported restorations was the measurement of, and then the computer-guided adjustments made to the excursive Disclusion Times. The T-Scan 10/BioEMG III synchronization directed the establishment of short Disclusion Time (< 0.5 seconds per excursion) on the occlusal surfaces of the implant restorations (Figures 15 and 16).

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated
Figure 15.One subject’s as installed but unadjusted right excursive T-Scan/BioEMG III data, showing significant excursive hyperactivity after the MIP clench to the right of Line C (upper right pane). EMG values of each muscle can be seen in the right middle pane (TA-R= 105.5 μv), (TA-L = 30.3 μv), (MM-R = 44.7 μv), (MM-L = 26.1 μv). In the T-Scan data (left pane) implants #sI-3 and I-14 were under overload warning, and the excursive COF trajectory moved directly towards tooth #4, indicating the presence of a working side group function with prolonged right Disclusion Time = 2.10 seconds (T-Scan timing table).
A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated
Figure 16.The same subject’s post-T-Scan adjusted right excursive T-Scan/BioEMG III data with markedly less excursive hyperactivity after the MIP clench to the right of Line C compared to Figure 15 in the upper and middle right panes (TA-R = 71.3 μv; TA-L = 17.4 μv; MM-R = 21.6 μv; MM-L = 29.4 μv). In the adjusted T-Scan data (left pane) no implants are under overload warning, and the excursive COF trajectory moved directly towards implant #I-6, indicating there was anterior guidance with short right Disclusion Time = 0.59 seconds (T-Scan timing table).

The pre-T-Scan adjusted Disclusion Time measurements were compared to the post-treatment T-Scan adjusted Disclusion Time measurements using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. The changes in the Disclusion Times were significant (p < 0.00001) (see Table 6).

Table 6.Disclusion Time Reduction was used to optimize the excursive function at delivery. Red highlight = significant change.
Disclusion Time Reduction Left DT Pre-TX (seconds) Left DT post DTR Day 1 (seconds) Right DT Pre-TX (seconds) Right DT post DTR Day 1 (seconds)
Mean 2.86 0.33 2.49 0.34
Standard Deviation 1.41 0.06 1.05 0.09
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank p < 0.00001 0.00001
DT = Disclusion Time, Tx = treatment,

Patient Satisfaction Survey

The post-treatment ordinal number survey consisted of 10 questions that were subjectively responded to by all 40 subjects. Overall, the implant reconstruction treatment had been highly satisfactory (see Table 7). The median score in 9 of 10 questions were scored by subjects at the maximum of 3. The mean percentage of the maximum score for all questions was 91.75%, indicative of very high levels of satisfaction with the treatment process and the completed treatments.

Table 7.The 10 ordinal number questions post-treatment had high maximal percentage Median and Mean scores (highlighted in red) that revealed very high overall patient satisfaction
Patient Satisfaction Survey Median Score by Question Mean Score by Question Percent of Maximum
(0 = no, 1 = sometimes, 2 = usually, 3 = always)
Were your appointments kept on time? 3 2.98 99.2%
Did you understand your treatment plan before it started? 3 2.75 91.7%
Did your treatment plan coincide with your wishes? 2 2.33 77.5%
Did your treatment meet your expectations? 3 2.65 88.3%
Would you accept the treatment plan again in the future? 3 2.78 92.5%
Would you recommend this practice to a family member? 3 2.98 99.2%
(0 - Terrible, 1 = Not good, 2 = O. K. 3 = Excellent)
How is the comfort of your prosthetic solution? 3 2.58 85.8%
How is your ability to chew food? 3 2.95 98.3%
How do you feel your smile looks now? 3 2.55 85.0%
How would you rate your total experience? 3 3.00 100.0%
Median Percentage Maximal Score (29/30) 97%
Mean Percentage of Maximum Total Score 91.75%

DISCUSSION

The findings of this mastication implant research are unique in that to date, there are no pre-existing studies that have reported on measurable chewing efficiency improvements with implant restorations. However, the Results do corroborate other EGN and EMG chewing studies where the occlusal contacts were optimized with T-Scan/EMG data to improve chewing strength, chewing speed, cycle timing while reducing variability.6–9,11 Another reason this study’s findings are unique is that two different boluses were compared for observed chewing improvements. The hard Peanut Chikki challenged the subjects more than did the soft gum, yet the subjects as a whole illustrated chewing improvements regardless of bolus consistency.

Although the chewing improvements in most parameters were statistically strong, it could be misperceived that these chewing changes resulted “just because fixed in place teeth replaced broken down dentitions”. It’s important to realize that fabricating the macro-occlusion (the All-on-6 prostheses) that was done from the digital restorative design with CAD/CAM machining, did not guarantee the fabricated macro-occlusal contacts operated optimally. Studies continue to show that despite the Digital Workflow, occlusal complications and breakage problems persist in implant dentistry, of which one of the reported complications is patient occlusal discomforts.12–17Although in this study no complications were tracked, the parametric chewing improvements resulted not only because implants were placed strategically and restored digitally, but because T-Scan/EMG force and timing data sets guided the occlusal adjustments made to both the transitional and final restorations.

Computer-guided occlusal optimization of contact forces, contact time simultaneity, and excursive Disclusion Time durations have been shown in many TMD and occlusal function treatment studies to create physiologic muscular function at the tooth contact level.18–24 In this mastication implant study, the application of those same computer-guided occlusal function controls made at prosthesis delivery, directly aided the subjects’ ability to chew with their new All-on-6 implant restorations.

Importantly, none of this study’s measured mastication improvements in strength, duration, motion pathways, and cycle timing could have been detected without the series of biometric technologies that assessed patient function. The idea that biometric instrumentation has “little merit” in the study of human occlusion and human chewing capability, sometimes being referred to as "gadgets,25 or that the weak, dysfunctional chewing seen with TMD patients is a problem stemming from “a patient’s compromised emotions26” are both unfounded opinions.27 Clearly, this study showed that multiple biometric measurements all utilized in a coordinated, organized restorative approach, precisely detected patient chewing motions, the muscles’ physiology during chewing, and optimized the occlusal contact timing that influenced functional chewing, from which the treated patients were enabled to chew with measurable physiologic improvements.

Of note is the muscular effort expended in chewing from prior to restoration compared to after restoration (Table 5), where between C - D in the muscular EMG data, there were statistically significant reductions in the effort expended by all four muscles (Figures 15, 16). The reported values in Table 5 are the amplitudes multiplied by the time duration each muscle-maintained contraction during excursions (microvolts x seconds). The values indicated the relative amount of effort expended during the transition from leaving MIP (C) to when posterior disclusion measurably occurred (D) were markedly reduced, while the contraction intensity typically was similar. This reduction in muscular effort was directly tied to creating short Disclusion Time (Figures 15 and 16; see Table 6) when the prostheses were installed. This illustrated the functional value of installing complex implant reconstructions with T-Scan 10 computer-guided force and timing data.11 Muscular physiologic control and hierarchy synchronicity during chewing has been previously shown to vastly improve when short Disclusion Time is incorporated into the occlusal surface functional contours.6–9

Lastly, Table 7 indicated that being converted from a failing dentition into an esthetically restored patient with a full complement of well-functioning, fixed-in-place teeth was quite an improvement for the 40 subjects. The post treatment satisfaction Means were unanimous for all subjects, while with the ordinal number Medians suggested all questions but number 3 (Did your treatment plan coincide with your wishes?), might have been unanimous for all subjects.

CONCLUSION

Implant-supported prostheses can measurably improve masticatory function when precisely constructed, and installed with computer-guided force and timing-controlled insertion occlusal adjustments. Complete implant-supported reconstructions that are digitally-planned for navigated implant placement surgery, and digitally-designed for optimal prosthetic tooth replacements, are functionally aided by digitally-guided occlusal adjustments made at case installation.

DISCLOSURE

Roshan P. Thumati practices Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, COPE Dental Health Care Center, Banashankari, Bengaluru, India.

Prafulla Thumati is professor of prosthodontics at Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, India.

Robert B. Kerstein is a former Assistant Clinical Professor at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine.

John Radke is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of BioResearch Associates, Inc., Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

This research project received no funding from any corporation involved in the manufacture of the utilized technologies.

Accepted: September 23, 2024 CDT

References

1.
Lepley C, Throckmorton G, Parker S, Buschang PH. Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics-are they related? Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(2):295-301. doi:10.2319/061109-333.1
Google Scholar
2.
Lepley CR, Throckmorton GS, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Relative contributions of occlusion, maximum bite force, and chewing cycle kinematics to masticatory performance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(5):606-613. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.025
Google Scholar
3.
Rodrigues CA, Melchior MO, Magri LV, Mestriner Jr W, Mazzetto MO. Is the masticatory function changed in patients with temporomandibular disorder? Brazilian Dent J. 2015;26(2):181-185. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201300198
Google Scholar
4.
Hama Y, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S, Uchida T, Sasaki Y. Properties of a color-changeable chewing gum used to evaluate masticatory performance. J Prosthodontic Res. 2014;58(2):102-106. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2013.12.005
Google Scholar
5.
Kuwahara T, Miyauchi S, Maruyama T. Clinical classification of the patterns of mandibular movements during mastication in subjects with TMJ disorders. Int J Prosthodontics. 1995;5(2):122-129.
Google Scholar
6.
Kerstein RB, Radke J. Average chewing pattern improvements following Disclusion Time reduction. Cranio. 2017;35(3):135-151. doi:10.1080/08869634.2016.1190526
Google Scholar
7.
Kerstein RB, Radke J. Computer-guided Occlusal Treatment Improves the Smoothness Timing and Velocity of Gum Chewing. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. Published online March 6, 2019:12-22. https:/​/​adtt.scholasticahq.com/​article/​7829-computer-guided-occlusal-treatment-improves-the-smoothness-timing-and-velocity-of-gum-chewing-galley-proof-3-12-2018
Google Scholar
8.
Ayinala M, Poovani S, Thumati P, Shetty G, Radke J. Mastication Analysis of patients with mandibular Kennedy’s Class I situation with or without modifications, before & after treatment partial denture insertion – an in vivo study. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. Published online December 30, 2020:73-85. https:/​/​adtt.scholasticahq.com/​article/​18648-mastication-analysis-of-patients-with-mandibular-kennedy-s-class-i-situation-with-or-without-modifications-before-after-treatment-partial-denture-i
Google Scholar
9.
Thumati P, Thumati R, Radke J. Changes in Objective Masticatory Measurements after Prosthodontic Treatments. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. Published online January 12, 2020:69-82. https:/​/​adtt.scholasticahq.com/​article/​11728-changes-in-objective-masticatory-measurements-after-prosthodontic-treatments
Google Scholar
10.
Kerstein RB, Wright N. An electromyographic and computer analysis of patients suffering from chronic myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome, pre and post - treatment with immediate complete anterior guidance development. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1991;66(5):677-686. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(91)90453-4
Google Scholar
11.
Sutter BA, Ruiz-Velasco G, Sethi MS, Radke J. New Masticatory Kinesiometric Index for Evaluation of Chewing Function. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. Published online March 31, 2024:1-19. https:/​/​adtt.scholasticahq.com/​article/​115925-new-masticatory-kinesiometric-index-for-evaluation-of-chewing-function
Google Scholar
12.
Lerner H, Mangano C, Luongo G, et al. Implant Complications After Installation with Traditional Vs Digital Occlusal Indicators. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. Published online February 13, 2024:1-15.
Google Scholar
13.
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al. Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: A retrospective study with 1- to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodontics. 2020;29(1):3-11. doi:10.1111/jopr.13119
Google Scholar
14.
Shen HD, Di P, Li JH, Luo J, Zhang Y, Lin Y. Complications of implant-supported full-arch immediate prosthesis: a retrospective analysis of 114 cases. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018;5(4):236-242.
Google Scholar
15.
Drago C. Frequency and type of prosthetic complications associated with interim, immediately-loaded full-arch prostheses: A 2-year retrospective chart review. J Prosthodontics. 2016;25(6):433-439. doi:10.1111/jopr.12343
Google Scholar
16.
Fischer K, Stenberg T. Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part II: prosthetic outcomes and maintenance. Clin Implant Dent Related Res. 2011;15(4):498-508. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00383.x
Google Scholar
17.
Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival andcomplication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(s6):22-38. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x
Google Scholar
18.
Andrus R, Quian F, Weir D, Schneider R, Huber L, Kerstein RB. Comparison of results of traditional occlusal adjustment technique w/ computer-aided occlusal adjustment technique. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 2019;1(2):43-53.
Google Scholar
19.
Kerstein RB, Chapman R, Klein M. A comparison of ICAGD (Immediate Complete Anterior Guidance Development) to “mock ICAGD” for symptom reductions in chronic myofascial pain dysfunction patients. Journal of Craniomandibular Practice. 1997;15(1):21-37. doi:10.1080/08869634.1997.11745990
Google Scholar
20.
Kerstein RB. Full mouth implant restorations installed with T-Scan data. Asian Journal of Oral Implantology & Tissue Regeneration. 2018;1(1):24-31.
Google Scholar
21.
Thumati P, Thumati RP, Poovani S, et al. A Multi-Center Disclusion Time Reduction (DTR) Randomized Controlled Occlusal Adjustment Study Using Occlusal Force and Timing Sensors Synchronized with Muscle Physiology Sensors. Sensors. 2021;21:7804.
Google Scholar
22.
Yiannios N, Sutter B, Radke J, Kerstein RB. TMJ vibration changes following immediate complete anterior guidance development. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 2018;1:13-28.
Google Scholar
23.
Thumati P, Poovani S, Bharathi B, Mounika A, Kerstein RB, Radke J. A Disclusion Time Reduction Randomized Controlled Occlusal Adjustment Trial. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 2020;2:1-23.
Google Scholar
24.
Kerstein RB, Radke J. Masseter and temporalis excursive hyperactivity decreased by measured anterior guidance development. CRANIO®. 2012;30:243-254. doi:10.1179/crn.2012.038
Google Scholar
25.
Manfredini D, Lombardo L, Siciliani G. Temporomandibular disorders and dental occlusion. A systematic review of association studies: end of an era? Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2017;44(11):908-923. doi:10.1111/joor.12531
Google Scholar
26.
Türp JC, Schindler H. The dental occlusion as a suspected cause for TMDs: epidemiological andetiological considerations. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2012;39:502-512. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02304.x
Google Scholar
27.
Thumati P, Sutter B, Kerstein RB, Yiannios N, Radke J. Changes in the Beck Depression Inventory - II Scores of TMD Subjects after Measured Occlusal Treatment. Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 2018;1(1):1-13.
Google Scholar

Resumen en español

Objetivos

A pesar del éxito de sustituir dientes faltantes o perdidos mediante implantes, existe muy pocas publicaciones científicas que se hayan dedicado a investigar o reportar cómo funciona la masticación de los pacientes con prótesis dentales totales implantosoportadas. Los dos objetivos principales de las restauraciones dentales totalmente implantosoportadas son mejorar la apariencia estética y por supuesto, mejorar la función masticatoria. Este estudio compara la masticación pre y post la restauración implantosoportada utilizando medidas objetivas de la función masticatoria obtenidas mediante series de registros oclusales tecnológicamente avanzados.

Métodos.

40 sujetos edéntulos o que requerían la exodoncia de sus órganos dentarios remantes por daño mayor, por indicación protésica o daño severo periodontal fueron seleccionados para tratamiento. Antes y después del tratamiento protésico total implantosoportado maxilar y mandibular a todos los sujetos se les realizaron registros de sus movimientos (de un punto incisivo mandibular) mediante un magnetógrafo, y se registraron además los cambios en los niveles de actividad muscular mientras masticaron bolos suaves y duros. La prueba Wilcoxon Signed-Rank analizó los patrones promedio de masticación (Averaged Chewing Pattern ACP) y los cambios en los tiempos de desoclusión de las prótesis finales, y la prueba Student’s t analizó los promedios de los ciclos de actividad muscular masticatoria (Averaged Chewing Cycle ACC). Al terminar el tratamiento protésico sobre implantes, todos los sujetos completaron también una encuesta de satisfacción.

Resultados

Los resultados con las prótesis totales implantosoportadas protésica instaladas ya, mejoraron significativamente los patrones promedio de masticación (ACP) y los promedios de los ciclos masticatorios musculares (ACC) ambos resultados mejoraron tanto que se acercaron mucho a los niveles de función normales en todos los sujetos del grupo (p < 0.05). Resultó también una reducción estadísticamente significativa en el esfuerzo muscular masticatorio en los sujetos (p < 0.00001). Los cambios en los tiempos de desoclusión entre los sujetos antes y después del tratamiento con ajuste guiado por la tecnología computarizada también fueron significativos (p < 0.00001). Y los sujetos del grupo mostraron un nivel de satisfacción muy alto (Promedio de satisfacción del grupo = 97%), con el promedio de 9 de las 10 preguntas resultante del nivel más alto.

Conclusión

Las prótesis fabricadas digitalmente mejoraron la estética del paciente y la función masticatoria cuando fueron ajustadas mediante la tecnología de fuerza computarizada – guiada y los tiempos de oclusión y desoclusión durante la cita de inserción de las prótesis. Esto llevó a que los pacientes mostraran un nivel de satisfacción alto tanto con el proceso de tratamiento de implantes y con el resultado protésico.

Palabras Clave

Prótesis totales implantosoportadas, Electronatografía (EGN), Magnetógrafo, Registro Movimiento punto Incisivo (Incisor-point Motion-Tracking), Electromiografía (EMG), T-Scan 10, Patrón Promedio de Masticación (Average Chewing Pattern ACP), Ciclo Promedio de Masticación (Average Chewing Cycle ACC), Reducción del Tiempo de Desoclusión (Disclusion Time Reduction DTR)