Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Pitsanulok, Thailand and
HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Medical Centre, Nakorn Nayok, Thailand
Introduction
Normal chewing is characterized by unilateral cycles
with periodic alternation of food between both sides of
the dentition although less unilateral cycles are
observed with homogenous and soft foods. Once the
food attains the consistency, homogeneity and cohesiveness ready to be swallowed, bilateral cycles can
occur (1, 2). The study of chewing-side pattern is useful
in understanding the neural control of chewing and the
design of dentures. Previous studies have shown that
most normal persons chew more on either the right or
left side, the so-called preferred chewing side (35).
What determines the side preferably used during
chewing is not known. Studies have shown that the
preferred chewing side is not related to handedness
(6, 7) and not associated with the area of tooth contact
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Data analysis
The number of right and left cycles was expressed as a
percentage of the total cycle number, i.e. %R and %L
respectively. On each day, the chewing-side pattern of
a given subject chewing a given test food was determined by statistically comparing the %R and %L with
J . P A P H A N G K O R A K I T et al.
MannWhitney tests (n 10 trials for each food).
A given subject was considered to have a right
chewing-side preference if %R was significantly
(P < 005) greater than %L or a left side preference if
%L was significantly (P < 005) greater than %R. Those
who did not show any side difference were classified as
no side preference. The percentage of the unidentified
(%U) cycles was not included in the comparison. Their
values were smaller than %R or %L and their inclusion
would not have affected the determination of side
pattern. In order to further investigate the nature of the
unidentified cycles, the percentage of such cycles was
calculated for each food type during the early, middle
and late (one-third) periods of the chewing sequence.
The differences in the number of unidentified cycles for
each period and food type were tested with two-way
ANOVA.
Results
The ultimate strength and the modulus of elasticity of
the test foods are shown in Table 1. The moduli of
elasticity were significantly different for the three food
types, with pork jerky being the greatest, followed by
almond and asparagus (P < 001). The ultimate
strength, however, was greatest in almonds. There
was no significant difference in both properties of the
same food type on two different days. All subjects used
both sides to chew test foods and none of the subjects
chewed exclusively unilaterally. The numbers of cycles
until swallowing (mean SD) in chewing pork jerky,
asparagus and almonds were 198 64, 109 37 and
151 48 respectively and they were significantly
different (one-way ANOVA; P < 0001). When the cycles
Table 1. Mechanical properties (mean SD) of food samples
(n 10 in each cell)
Day 1
Modulus of
elasticity
(MPa)
Day 2
Ultimate
strength
(MPa)
Modulus of
elasticity
(MPa)
Ultimate
strength
(MPa)
Almond
157 39
08 04
153 76
09 05
Pork jerky 231 100 040 016 204 104 043 019
Asparagus
11 02
03 01
13 04
03 004
Modulus of elasticity was calculated from the slope of the initial
linear part of the stressstrain curve. Ultimate strength was
determined by the highest stress at which pork jerky and almonds
were broken apart and fresh asparagus yielded under force.
%R
%L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
324
406
393
337
372
639
425
462
381
593
389
508
392
505
465
433
430
389
703
489
357
375
443
437
384
155
448
409
430
291
473
440
478
347
392
286
413
500
121
449
Side preference*
L
R
R
R
L
R
R
L
R
088
006
088
(0001)
094
(0001)
066
023
024
(0001)
032
(002)
(003)
(0001)
042
(0001)
076
(002)
(0001)
044
Day 1
Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Jerky
006
R(0.005)
L(0.02)
006
022
R(0001)
L(0.03)
091
L(004)
04
022
012
08
R(001)
R(005)
007
R(003)
007
R(0001)
04
Day 2
Asparagus
Almond
Jerky
019
R(001)
058
025
091
R(0001)
058
068
097
R(0002)
053
053
068
058
R(002)
R(001)
R(002)
044
R(005)
028
01
006
09
L(0001)
024
R(0001)
097
035
007
R(0001)
025
008
065
006
012
006
064
007
R(0001)
R(001)
015
L(0001)
091
097
04
R(0001)
065
034
032
R(0002)
072
008
L(002)
R(001)
011
006
067
L(0001)
R(0001)
042
Asparagus
Almond
076
L(002)
018
076
073
R(0001)
R(003)
028
044
L(0001)
035
R(003)
L(002)
R(001)
006
R(003)
094
044
R(0001)
049
059
072
09
L(0003)
L(001)
R(0001)
006
049
009
R(0001)
064
01
056
1
058
006
02
093
R(0001)
073
P-values for chewing-side preference obtained from MannWhitney tests are indicated for each
subject.
R right side preference; L left side preference; No label no side preference.
Day 1
Jerky
Almond
Asparagus
Day 2
Early
Middle
Late
Early
Middle
Late
60 106
48 85
40 81
84 119
77 101
73 103
128 145
122 122
88 87
24 65
20 59
15 62
51 103
46 88
32 69
95 124
94 120
51 77
Each period is obtained by dividing the chewing sequence into three equal intervals. Percentages
of unidentified cycles seen during late periods were, in general, higher than middle periods and
both were significantly higher than during early periods (P < 001). The percentages seen with
asparagus were always significantly lower than those with jerky and almond (P < 001).
Discussion
Although the method used to observe the chewing side
in this study was based on visual inspection, it showed a
fairly acceptable validity and had the advantage that it
did not use an intra-oral device that might interfere
with subjects natural jaw movements. The camera
might make subjects uneasy but its possible effect on
chewing behaviour was minimized by randomizing the
test foods. Movement of the chin as observed in this
study has been shown to correlate with that obtained
from a jaw-tracking device but provides a larger value
of lateral displacement (12) and this was in agreement
J . P A P H A N G K O R A K I T et al.
with the present study. About the same number of our
subjects did or did not have a preferred chewing side.
This did not conform with some previous studies which
showed side preference in most subjects (46,16). The
difference could be due to the observation method,
number of trials, types of test food and the method used
in analysing the preferred chewing side. The determination of the preferred chewing side in this study was
similar to that used by Wilding and Lewin (4). They,
however, found that most subjects had a preferred
chewing side. The results of the present study suggest
that chewing-side preference is not a fixed characteristic, especially when food texture or recording session
is different. More subjects (seven to nine subjects) had a
preferred chewing side when chewing tough jerky
compared to hard almonds (five subjects). Cutting
(grinding) tough food (like jerky) might require a more
comfortable chewing side whereas breaking almonds
might be indifferent between both sides of the jaw,
resulting in more frequent chewing-side alternation.
Interestingly, seven to nine subjects also showed a side
preference when chewing fresh asparagus. Although
tender foods are likely to be chewed indifferently on
either side of the jaw, fresh asparagus might be so
fibrous that it needed to be chewed on the preferred
side. Toughness of foods, therefore, might help explain
the choice of chewing side. Wilding and Lewin (4)
noticed a similarity of the chewing-side pattern
between two recording sessions in their subjects chewing wine-gums. In the present study, almonds showed
the most reproducible chewing-side pattern (18 of
20 subjects), compared with asparagus and jerky. This
was probably because of the more regular texture of
wine-gums and almonds although the strength and
elasticity of pork jerky and asparagus tested on 2 days
was not significantly different. It was also possible that
the breakage of brittle foods like almonds might be
easily reproduced whereas that of jerky and asparagus
was less predictable. The unidentified cycles have never
been reported in previous preferred chewing-side
studies (46). These cycles could be true bilateral cycles
or those with such small lateral movements that the
current visual method was not able to detect them. This
type of cycle was more often observed during the later
parts of each chewing sequence (Table 4). The explanation could be that as the chewing unfolded, the foods
became softer and more dissociated. Subjects tended
thus to use less lateral movement or even chew
bilaterally. Probably because of its fibrous texture, it
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Prof. J. W. Osborn for
reading and giving valuable advice on the original
version of this manuscript and Prof. P. W. Lucas who
advised on food property testing. This study was
supported by the Research Fund of Faculty of Dentistry,
Khon Kaen University.
References
1. Alexander RM. News of chews: the optimization of mastication. Nature. 1998;391:329.
2. Hiiemae K, Heath MR, Heath G, Kazazoglu E, Murray J,
Sapper D, Hamblett K. Natural bites, food consistency and
feeding behaviour in man. Arch Oral Biol. 1996;41:175189.
3. Wictorin L, Hedegard B, Lundberg M. Cineradiographic
studies of bolus position during chewing. J Prosthet Dent.
1971;26:236246.
4. Wilding RJ, Lewin A. A model for optimum functional human
jaw movements based on values associated with preferred
chewing patterns. Arch Oral Biol. 1991;36:519523.