Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 24;18(13):6776.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136776.

The Significance of Posterior Occlusal Support of Teeth and Removable Prostheses in Oral Functions and Standing Motion

Kyosuke Oki  1 , Yoichiro Ogino  1 , Yuriko Takamoto  2 , Mikio Imai  3 , Yoko Takemura  3 , Yasunori Ayukawa  1   3 , Kiyoshi Koyano  4
Affiliations

The Significance of Posterior Occlusal Support of Teeth and Removable Prostheses in Oral Functions and Standing Motion

Kyosuke Oki et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of posterior occlusal support of natural teeth and artificial teeth on oral functions and standing motion. Patients who had been treated with removable prostheses were enrolled as the subjects. Their systemic conditions (body mass index (BMI) and skeletal muscle mass index (SMI)) were recorded. The subjects were classified into two groups according to a modified Eichner index: B1-3 (with posterior occlusal support) and B4C (without posterior occlusal support). Maximum occlusal force (MOF), masticatory performance (MP), and standing motion (sway and strength) were evaluated for cases with and without removable prostheses. There were no significant differences in BMI and SMI between the B1-3 group and the B4C group. The subjects with removable prostheses demonstrated significantly higher values in MOF, MP, and sway and strength than the subjects without removable prostheses. The comparison of oral functions between the B1-3 group and the B4C group revealed that the positive effect of posterior occlusal support of natural teeth and removable prostheses and the significant positive effects of posterior occlusal support on standing motion were partly observed in these comparisons. Posterior occlusal support of natural teeth and even of removable prostheses may contribute to the enhancement of oral functions and standing motion.

Keywords: Eichner index; masticatory function; maximum occlusal force; posterior occlusal support; removable prostheses; standing motion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Measurement device (MC–780A) for the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI): (a) main unit; (b) measurement image.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Occlusal force measurement system: (a) pressure-sensitive sheet (Dental Prescale II); (b) image of occlusal condition using software (bite force analyzer).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Masticatory performance (MP) measurement system (Gluco Sensor GS–II). The concentration of glucose from the chewed gummy jelly was defined as MP.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Motor function analyzer (zaRitz BM–220): (a) main unit; (b) measurement image (the beginning of analysis); (c) measurement image (motor function measurement after standing up).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparisons of maximum occlusal force and masticatory performance between all subjects with and without removable prostheses. (* p < 0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) RP (−)): subjects without removable prostheses; RP (+): subjects with removable prostheses.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparisons of standing motion (sway and strength) between all subjects with and without removable prostheses. (* p < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) RP (−): subjects without removable prostheses; RP (+): subjects with removable prostheses.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparisons of maximum occlusal force and masticatory performance between the B1–3 group and the B4C group with or without removable prostheses in each group (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test). Comparisons of maximum occlusal force and masticatory performance between subjects with and without removable prostheses in each group (B1–3 group or B4C group) (*** p < 0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). RP (−): subjects without removable prostheses; RP (+): subjects with removable prostheses.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparisons of standing motion (sway and strength) between the B1–3 group and the B4C group with or without removable prostheses in each group (* p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Comparisons of standing motion (sway and strength) between subjects with and without removable prostheses in each group (B1–3 group or B4C group) (** p < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). RP (+): subjects with removable prostheses; RP (−): subjects without removable prostheses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hopewell S., Adedire O., Copsey B.J., Boniface G.J., Sherrington C., Clemson L., Close J.C., Lamb S.E. Multifactorial and multiple component interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018;7:CD012221. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012221.pub2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gawrońska K., Lorkowski J. Falls, Aging and Public Health-a Literature Review. J. Ortop. Traumatol. Rehabil. 2020;22:397–408. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.6044. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ambrose A.F., Paul G., Hausdorff J.M. Risk factors for falls among older adults: A review of the literature. Maturitas. 2013;75:51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.02.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hill A.M., McPhail S.M., Waldron N., Etherton-Beer C., Ingram K., Flicker L., Bulsara M., Haines T.P. Fall rates in hospital rehabilitation units after individualised patient and staff education programmes: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2592–2599. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61945-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barker A.L., Nitz J.C., Choy N.L.L., Haines T.P. Mobility has a non-linear association with falls risk among people in residential aged care: An Fobservational study. J. Physiother. 2012;58:117–125. doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(12)70092-9. - DOI - PubMed