Tongue function and its influence on masticatory performance in patients treated for oral cancer: a five-year prospective study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to observe the impact of oral oncological treatment, including the recovery of several tongue functions (force, mobility, and sensory functions), and to determine the influence of these functions on masticatory performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Masticatory performance and tongue force, mobility, and sensory functions were determined in 123 patients with oral cavity cancer. The assessments were performed 4 weeks before treatment and 4 to 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years after treatment. Generalized estimation equations and mixed model analyses were performed, correcting for previously identified factors in the same population. RESULTS: A significant deterioration in tongue mobility and sensory function was observed in patients with mandible and tongue and/or floor-of-mouth tumors. Better tongue force and sensory function (thermal and tactile) positively influenced masticatory performance, and this effect was stronger where fewer occlusal units were present. The effect of both the tongue force and maximum bite force was weaker in dentate patients in comparison with patients with full dentures. A web-based application was developed to enable readers to explore our results and provide insight into the coherence between the found factors in the mixed model. CONCLUSIONS: Tongue function deteriorates after oral oncological treatment, without statistically significant recovery. Adequate bite and tongue forces are especially important for patients with a poor prosthetic state. Patients with sensory tongue function deficits especially benefit from the presence of more occluding pairs.

Mastication in maxillectomy patients: A comparison between reconstructed maxillae and implant supported obturators: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare masticatory performance and patient reported eating ability of maxillectomy patients with implant-supported obturators and patients with surgically reconstructed maxillae. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada and at Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands. Eleven surgically reconstructed maxillectomy patients have been included at University of Alberta and nine implant-supported obturator patients at MUMC+. The mixing ability test (MAT) was used to measure masticatory performance. In addition, the oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) was measured with shortened versions of the oral health impact profile (OHIP) questionnaire. Values of the implant-supported obturator group versus the surgical reconstruction group were compared with independent t-tests in case of normal distribution, otherwise the Mann-Whitney U test was applied. RESULTS: Patients with reconstructed maxillae and patients with implant-supported obturator prostheses had similar mean mixing ability indices (18.20 ± 2.38 resp. 18.66 ± 1.37; P = .614). The seven OHRQoL questions also showed no differences in masticatory ability between the two groups. CONCLUSION: With caution, the results of this study seem to confirm earlier results that implant-supported obturation is a good alternative to surgical reconstruction for all Class II maxillary defects. With both techniques, the masticatory performance is sufficiently restored, with careful planning being highly desirable.

A pilot study of masticatory function after maxillectomy comparing rehabilitation with an obturator prosthesis and reconstruction with a digitally planned, prefabricated, free, vascularized fibula flap.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Oral rehabilitation after maxillectomy can be performed by prosthetic obturation or with a free fibula flap. Successful prosthetic obturation of large maxillectomy defects can be difficult, and masticatory function is at risk in these patients. Surgical reconstruction might provide adequate masticatory function, but the literature is lacking evidence regarding this topic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to assess masticatory functions and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes in patients after maxillectomy reconstructed by using the Rohner or the Alberta Reconstructive Technique and to compare outcomes with patients rehabilitated with an obturator prosthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mixing ability, maximum occlusal force, maximum mouth opening, and HR-QoL were assessed. Differences between the 2 groups were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: The reconstructed patients (n=11) showed better mixing ability, occlusal force (nonoperated side), and overall mean HR-QoL. The nonreconstructed group (n=13) did not differ from the reconstructed groups in terms of maximum mouth opening, overall mean occlusal force, occlusal force on the operated side, and most HR-QoL questionnaire domains. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary reconstruction might be beneficial for masticatory performance in patients undergoing maxillectomy. A larger study is justified to support the possible benefit of the reconstruction of maxillary defects regarding mixing ability, occlusal force (nonoperated side), and HR-QoL.

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life After Segmental Mandibulectomy and Reconstruction with a Reconstruction Plate or Bone Graft Compared to a Digitally Planned Fibula Free Flap.

PURPOSE: To compare oral function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients reconstructed with either a reconstruction plate or a free vascularized bone flap with or without 3D planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, and Radboud University Medical Center were included. This cross-sectional study assessed objective masticatory performance with the mixing ability test (mixing ability index [MAI]), maximum bite force, maximum mouth opening, and HRQoL. Differences between groups were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. RESULTS: Six patients with digitally planned resections and reconstructions were included. For comparison, five patients treated with freehand bone reconstruction and four patients treated with plate reconstruction were also included. Mixing ability was superior in 3D-planned reconstructions (MAI: 20.7 ± 6.7) compared to plate reconstructions (MAI: 30.0 ± 0.1, P = .017) and freehand reconstructions (MAI: 29.5 ± 1.1, P = .017). Maximum mouth opening, bite force, and HRQoL differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: This study indicated a possible benefit to masticatory performance of adequate surgical planning for one-phase reconstruction using 3D technology. A larger prospective study is necessary to gain more evidence regarding this finding.

Masticatory function and related factors after oral oncological treatment: A 5-year prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Chewing ability is often compromised in patients with oral cancer. The aim of this study was to identify which factors affect masticatory performance in these patients. METHODS: Patients with primary oral cancer were assessed for up to 5 years after primary treatment. Healthy controls were assessed once. A mixed-model analysis was performed, with masticatory performance as outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included in the study. Factors positively associated with masticatory performance were number of occlusal units (OU), having functional dentures, and maximum mouth opening (MMO). The impact of tumor location and maximum bite force (MBF) differed per assessment moment. Masticatory performance declined for up to 1 year but recovered at 5 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: Masticatory performance in patients treated for oral cancer is affected by MBF, MMO, number of OU, and dental status. These should be the focus of posttreatment therapy.