Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain

Korean Academy of Orofacial Pain and Oral Medicine (대한안면통증구강내과학회)
권호 표지

Occlusal Analysis of the Subjects with Chewing Side Preference Using the T-Scan II System

T-Scan II 시스템을 이용한 습관적 편측저작자들의 교합 분석

  • Park, Eun-Hee (Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Mee-Eun (Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Suk (Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 박은희 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 김미은 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 김기석 (단국대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실)
  • Published : 2006.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

While orofacial pain or various dental factors are generally considered as the primary cause of unilateral chewing tendency, there exist several studies indicating that dental factors did not affect the preferred chewing side. The aim of this study was to examine difference of occlusal scheme between the subjects with and without chewing side preference. The difference between the chewing and non-chewing sides in the unilateral chewing group was investigated as well. Computerized, T-Scan II system was used for occlusal analysis. 20 subjects for the unilateral chewing group (mean age of $25.25{\pm}2.84$ years) and 20 subjects for the bilateral chewing group (mean age of $27.00{\pm}5.07$ years) were selected by a questionnaire on presence or absence of chewing side preference and those with occlusal problem or pain and/or dysfunction of jaw were excluded. T-Scan recordings were obtained during maximum intercuspation and excursion movement. The number of contact points, relative occlusal force ratio between right and left sides, tooth sliding area and elapsed time throughout the maximum intercuspation were calculated. Elapsed time for excursion was also investigated. The results of this study shows that the unilateral chewing group had the smaller average tooth contact areas compared with those of the bilateral group (p<0.005). In the unilateral chewing group, the contact areas of non-chewing side are smaller than those of chewing side (p<0.005). The contact areas on their preferred sides were not significantly different with those of right or left side of the subjects without chewing side preference. There was no significant difference in the elapsed time during maximum intercuspation and lateral excursion, the sliding areas and relative of right-to-left occlusal force ratio between the two groups. From the results of this study, it is likely that individuals prefer chewing on the side with more contact areas for efficient chewing.

구강안면 영역의 통증이나 치아결손, 부정교합 같은 치아적 요소가 편측저작습관의 주요요인으로 여겨지나, 치아적 요소가 선호하는 저작측에 영향을 주지 않는다는 연구들도 있다. 본 연구에서는 컴퓨터화된 교합분석 시스템인 T-Scan II 시스템을 사용하여 편측으로 저작하는 대상자와 양측으로 저작하는 대상자 사이에 교합양상의 특이점이 있는지 조사하고 편측 저작자의 주저작측과 비저작측 사이의 차이를 함께 평가하고자 하였다. 편측저작습관에 대한 설문을 통하여 20명의 편측 저작자(평균 $25.25{\pm}2.84$세)와 20명의 양측 저작자(평균 $27.00{\pm}5.07$세)를 선정하였으며 치아적 문제나 악골의 통증이나 기능이상 같은 문제가 있는 경우는 모두 제외하였다. 습관적 폐구와 측방운동시의 교합양상은 T-Scan II 시스템을 이용하여 측정하였다. 습관적 폐구는 시간에 따라 초기, 중기, 말기로 나누었다. 각 세 단계에서의 접촉점의 수와 교합력의 비율을 좌우 양측으로 나누어 조사하였다. 습관적 페구 동안의 경과시간 및 치아 활주면적, 좌우측 각각의 측방운동시간이 측정되었다. 편측 저작 습관을 가진 사람들의 경우 양측 저작을 하는 사람에 비해서 치아의 평균 교합 면적이 작았다(p<0.005). 습관적 편측저작자에서 저작측과 비저작측을 비교해보았을 때 비저작측의 교합면적은 저작측에 비해 작았으나 (p<0.005), 편측저작자의 저작측과 양측저작군의 어느 한쪽의 교합면적 사이에는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 최초접촉부터 최대교두감합위까지의 경과 시간 및 측방운동 시간, 치아의 활주 면적 및 교합력의 좌우 비율도 양측저작군과 편측저작군 사이에 유의한 차이가 없었다. 이러한 결과는 저작시 좌우측 중 교합면적이 작은 측을 피하여 교합효율이 높은 방향으로 저작을 한다는 것을 의미한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Giannitrapani D. Laterality preference, electrophysiology and the brain. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1979;19:105-123
  2. Delport HP, de Laat A, Nijs J, Hoogmatens MJ. Preference pattern of mastication during the first chewing cycle. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983;23:491-500 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(67)90196-4
  3. Hoogmartens MJ, Caubergh MAA. Chewing side preference in man correlated with hardness, footeness, eyedness, and earness. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987; 27:293-300
  4. Christensen LV, Raude JT. Lateral preference in mastication: a feasibility study. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12: 421-427 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01547.x
  5. Christensen LV, Raude JT. lateral preference in mastication: relation to pain. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:461-467 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01292.x
  6. Lee CK, Han KS, Kim BK. Effects of the head postures and chewing side preference on the tooth contact pattern. The Journal of Korean Academy of Craniomandibular disorders 1997;9:40-49
  7. Felicio CM, Mazzetto MO, Perri Angote Dos Santos C. Masticatory behavior in individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Minerva Stomatol 2002;51:111-120
  8. Oh HY, Han KS. Relations between clinical findings and treatment results in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Korean Journal of Oral Medicine 1995;20:407-420
  9. Goldaracena P, Ray R, Martinez C. Dental caries and chewing side preference in Maya Indians. J Dent Res 1984;63:182
  10. Varela JM, Castro NB, Biedma BM et al. A comparison of the methods used to determine chewing preference. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30:990-994 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01085.x
  11. Beyron HL. Occlusal changes in adult dentition. J Am Dent Assoc 1954;48:674-686 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1954.0102
  12. Beyron HL. Occlusal relations and mastication in Australian Aborigines. Acta Odontol Scand 1964;22:597-678 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356409058580
  13. Mohl ND, Zarb GA, Carlsson GE, Rugh JD. A Textbook of Occlusion. Chicago, 1988, Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., pp. 143
  14. Wilding RJ, Adams LP, Lewin A. Absence of association between a preferred chewing side and its area of functional contact in human dentition. Arch Oral Biol 1992;37:423-428 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(92)90027-6
  15. Bates JF, Stafford GD, Harrisson A. Masticatory function - a review of literature. J Oral Rehabil 1975;2:281-301 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1975.tb00921.x
  16. Pond LH, Barghi N, Barnwell GM. Occlusion and chewing side preference. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55: 498-500 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90186-1
  17. Nissan J, Gross MD, Shifman A, Tzadok L, Assif D. Chewing side preference as a type of hemispheric laterality. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:412-416 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01256.x
  18. Ahlgren J. Pattern of chewing and malocclusion of teeth. A clinical study. Acta odontol Scand 1967;25:3-13 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356709072519
  19. Wilding RJ, Lewin A. A model for optimum functional human jaw movements based on values associated with preferred chewing patterns. Arch Oral Biol 1991;36;519-523 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(91)90145-K
  20. Garcia Cartagena A, Gonzalez Sequero O, Garrido Garcia VC Analysis of two methods for occlusal contact registration with the T-Scan system. J Oral Rehabil 1996;24:426-432 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00351.x
  21. Kerstein RB. Combining technologies: A computerized occlusal analysis system synchronized with a computerized electromyography system. Cranio 2004;22:96-109 https://doi.org/10.1179/crn.2004.013
  22. Schelb E, Kaiser D, Brukl C. Thickness and marking characteristics of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:575-578 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90367-5
  23. Dawson PE. Evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of occlusal problems. 1st ed., St. Louis, 1974, The CV Mosby Company, pp. 99
  24. Millstein PL. An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators: a descriptive, qualitative method. Quintessence Int 1983; 14:813-836
  25. Saracoglu A, Ozpinar B. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88:522-526 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129064
  26. Muller J, Gotz G, Horz W, Kraft E. An experimental study on the influence of the derived casts on the accuracy of different recording materials. Part II: Polyether, acrylic resin and corrected wax wafer. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:389-395 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90225-2
  27. Dawson PE, Arcan M. Attaining harmonic occlusion through visualized strain analysis. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:615-622 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90067-6
  28. Gazit E, Fitzig S, Lieberman MA. Reproducibility of occlusal marking techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:505-509 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90188-5
  29. Reza Moini M, Neff PA. Reproducibility of occlusal contacts utilizing a computerized instrument. Quintessence Int 1991;22:357-360
  30. Maness WL. Laboratory comparison of three occlusal registration methods for identification of induced interceptive contacts. J Prosthet Dent . 1991;65: 483-487 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90284-4
  31. Moller E. The chewing apparatus. An electromyographic study of the action of the muscles of mastication and its correlation to facial morphology. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1966;280:1-229
  32. Wictorin L, Hedegard B, Lundberg M. Masticatory function-- A cineradiographic study. 3. Position of the bolus in individuals with full complement of natural teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 1968;26:213-222 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356809026134
  33. Gillings BRD. Is there a preferred chewing side? J Dent Res 1977;56:195
  34. Neill DJ. Masticatory function. J Dent Assoc S Afr 1982;37:631-636
  35. Yurkstas AA, Manly RS. Measurement of occlusal contact area effective in mastication. Am J Orthodont 1949; 35:185-195 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(49)90028-7
  36. Pameijer JH, Glickman I, Roeber FW. Intraoral occlusal telemetry. 3. Tooth contacts in chewing, swallowing and bruxism. J Periodontol 1969;40: 253-258 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1969.40.5.253
  37. Ahlgren J, Owall B. Muscular activity and chewing force: a polygraphic study of human mandibular movements. Arch oral Biol 1970;15:271-280 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(70)90053-1
  38. Kong CV, Yang YL, Maness WL. Clinical evaluation of three occlusal registration methods for guided closure contacts. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:15-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90344-V
  39. Gross M, Nemcovsky C, Tabibian Y, Gazit E. The effect of three different recording materials on the reproducibility of condylar guidance registrations in three semi-adjustable articulators. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:204-208 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00225.x
  40. Gross M, Nemcovsky C, Friedlander LD. Comparative study of condylar settings of three semiadjustable articulators. Int J Prsthodont 1990; 3:135-141
  41. Omar SM, McEwen JD, Ogston SA. A test for occlusal function. The value of a masticatory efficiency test in the assessment of occlusal function. Br J Orthod 1987;14:85-90 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.14.2.85
  42. Luke DA, Lucas PW. Chewing efficiency in relation to occlusal and other variations in the natural human dentition. Br Dent J 1985;159:401-403 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805742
  43. Yurkstas AA. The masticatory act. A review. J Prosthet Dent 1965;15:248-262 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(65)90094-6
  44. Wilding RJ. The association between chewing efficiency and occlusal contact area in man. Arch oral Biol 1993;38:589-596 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(93)90124-5
  45. Hildebrand Y. Studies in mandibular kinematics. Dental Cosmos 1936;78:449-458