Characterization of Acoustic Parameters in Phases of Masticatory Sequence

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2234027/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Characterization of Acoustic Parameters in Phases of Masticatory Sequence

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2234027/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Chewing food produces characteristic sounds of the breakage of food. Due to the limitations of sound collection devices, there have been few studies on chewing sounds in the different phases of mastication. Thus, there has been no significant progress in the field of mastication sound. In addition, the characterization of acoustic signals in mastication remains unclear. Our aim was to investigate the correlation between mastication indicators and acoustic signals and the variations of these metrics throughout the entire phase of chewing process. Methods: Fifty-two volunteers with healthy dentition consumed natural foods (peanuts), and the mastication sounds at four stages in the mastication process were recorded by a bone-conduction microphone and further analysed by the acoustic software Praat 5.4.04. The granulometry of the expectorated food boluses was characterized by the median particle size (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in each of the four phases of the chewing sequence. Kinematic parameters, including the chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c), and the chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c), and acoustic parameters, including mastication sound pitch (MP, MP^a, MP^b, MP^c) and mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) were recorded and analysed by Praat 5.5.04. Independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVAs and Pearson correlation analyses were used where applicable.

Results: Significant differences in the chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c), mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) and granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) parameters were found in all four stages when compared by sex (t-test, p<0.01, p<0.01, p<0.01, respectively). Significant differences were observed in mastication sound intensity and granulometry of the food bolus group between different phases of mastication (one-way ANOVA, p<0.01, p<0.01). Comparing all of the indicators, a highly negative correlation was found between mastication sound intensity and granulometry of food boluses at each stage of mastication: MI and D50, MI^a and D50^a, MI^b and D50^b, and MI^c and D50^c (r=-0.94, r=-0.85, r=-0.94, r=-0.95, respectively; p<0.01). No significant correlation was found between the remaining acoustic and mastication parameters.

Conclusions: Variations in mastication sound intensity and the granulometry of the food bolus were highly correlated in all four phases of mastication. Mastication sound intensity may be a new and essential approach for studying mastication.

mastication phases

acoustic parameters

kinematic parameters

D50 value

bone-conduction tech

Mastication is a physiological activity aimed at the preparation of food deglutition. The characterization of food breakage is crucial for mastication sensation.¹ Compared with the previous method most commonly used to evaluate mastication, which is a comminution method using a sieve,² recent alternatives to sieving have been used to evaluate particle size distribution. The main ways to evaluate bolus particles include digital scanning, spectrophotometer measurements of released dye and glucose released from fragmented test food particles.^3–5 Another method of assessing mastication, measures the degree of mixing in colour-changing chewing gum or two-colour wax or gum.^6–8 In recent studies, the sieve method has shown more advantages than color mixing of test food.^9,10 In the latest research, bolus granulometry analysis, expressed as the D50 value, indicates the test food theoretical sieve size, and the measurement of kinematic parameters before swallowing, which produces the bolus, has been a good criterion for normal mastication objectives.^1,11 Hence, both masticatory kinematic parameters and bolus granulometry analysis could be valuable indicators for assessing mastication.

In previous studies, most research on the chewing process focused on the characteristic of masticatory kinematic parameters, such as chewing rate, chewing cycles and chewing frequency.^12–14 Few auditory studies have been conducted in the research of chewing process.^15,16 Furthermore, acoustic studies on chewing sounds mainly concentrated on the area of food texture and the relationship between mastication and swallowing.^17–19 The acoustic parameters were merely suggested to be direct indices of mastication behaviour, and there was no further exploration of their relationship with masticatory performance in previous studies. In recent studies that were aimed at the relationship between chewing sound and mastication performance, it was proven that acoustic indicators of chewing sound may be valuable in the assessment of mastication ^20,21

However, there was no complete sound capture device and a lack of further analysis of acoustic parameters in early research with regards to adapterization and analysis of chewing sound.²² Based on the limitation of acoustic processing methods, the bone-conduction tech, which provides an independent path of adapterization and a wider spectrum to annotate sound data, may be a good solution. Additionally, the acoustic signal is conducted by a solid sound medium and collected by a bone-conducted microphone, which avoids any rustling sounds in the air.^21,22 For the sake of better sound data analysis, the new acoustic software Praat supports an advanced method of calculating sound frequencies and sound intensity, which directly reflects the pitch and loudness of soundwave.^23,24

Aiming at further study of the relationship between chewing sounds and mastication, the comparative analysis of acoustic data and conventional mastication parameters including kinematic parameters and food bolus granulometry, were performed in different phases of mastication in this study. The possibility of evaluating of mastication by acoustic parameters was further explored.

Fifty-two volunteers (26 men and 26 women) aged between 20 and 30 years were recruited. All included participants had complete natural dentition and a normal overjet, overbite and Angle Ⅰ molar relationship, had not undergone dental restoration treatment; and could chew without unilateral mastication.

The mastication sequence was divided into 4 phases, and 4 raw peanuts (weight 2.24 ± 0.16 g) were chewed by each subject in each phase. In addition to the first phase of whole chewing cycles before swallowing (CC), the number of chewing cycles in the second, third and fourth phases were 0.25*CC, 0.5*CC and 0.75*CC, rounded to the nearest whole chewing cycle. Then, bolus granulometry and kinematic and acoustic were collected and calculated in each phase.

The acoustic data collection phase of all subjects who wore the bone-conduction recording device was performed in a quiet room. A bone-conduction microphone from BONE VIBRATION HEADGEAR (Model: HG17BN-TX developed by TEMCo INDUSTRIAL LLC)^23,24 linked to a SONY ZOOM H4n recording device (Model: Dedicated Zoom AD-14 AC Adapter developed by Sony Group Corporation) was used to record chewing sounds. The bone-conduction device was attached to the preauricular skin of each subject, and the chewing sound signal was captured when peanuts were put into the subject’s mouth and chewing started. All sound data were recorded in a monochannel with an 8000 Hz sampling frequency and 16 bit sampling precision.

After the adapterization of the chewing sound data, the acoustic parameters were calculated by Praat 5.4.04 (developed by Paul Boersma and David Weenink Phonetic Sciences, Division of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands).^23,24 In the analysis of the sound oscillogram by Praat, the periods of mastication were annotated on the timeline, and the chewing cycles, mastication sound pitch and mastication sound intensity values were calculated by Praat. The acoustic data were separately processed in the first, second, third and fourth phases to calculate the mastication sound pitch (MP, MP^a, MP^b, MP^c) and the mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c). In the evaluation of kinematic parameters, chewing frequency was divided by chewing time and chewing cycles for each subject. In the first, second, third and fourth phases, the number of chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c) and the chewing time were annotated accurately on the sound oscillogram by Praat. Then, the chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c) of the four phases was calculated separately as the number of chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c) divided the chewing time.

In the food bolus processing phase, the masticated boluses were collected, rinsed and dried after chewing, and then processed by Powdershape®. The food bolus of each participant was collected before rinsing with saliva through a 100-µm sieve in water. Then, the chewed bolus was dried at 80°C for 30 min. After that, the bolus of each sample was dispersed on a transparent A4 acrylic sheet and then scanned to construct a 600 dpi image. By the image analysis software of Powdershape® (Model: Ringstrasse 29 CH-7324 Vilters developed by Innovative Sintering Technologies Ltd., Switzerland), the food bolus granulometry particle size and distribution were further evaluated by the median particle size value (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in each phase, which expressed the theoretical sieve size that would let through 50% of the particle weights. Thus, the median particle size value (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) decreased as the food boluses contained more small particles. Based on a previous study, two median particle size values of food boluses above 1 mm were recorded for each subject, and each natural food was averaged. Consequently, a higher mastication degree produced smaller bolus granule particles.

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS®17 software. Independent samples t-test were conducted on the acoustic and masticatory parameters by sex in each phase. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.01. Pearson correlations were calculated between the acoustic parameters and masticatory parameters (p < 0.01) in each stage. One-way ANOVA was used in the intragroup comparisons for the median particle size value, mastication sound pitch, mastication sound intensity and chewing frequency (p < 0.01).

A total of 52 volunteers (26 women, mean age, 20.9 ± 1.6; 26 men, mean age 21.7 ± 1.8) met the criteria for inclusion in this study of the four phases of the chewing process. Descriptive data of the masticatory sound, food bolus granulometry and mastication are shown in Table 1 and Additional file 1: Tables S.1 - S.5.

Table 1

Age and acoustic and masticatory parameters in the four mastication phases
Parameters	Mean ± SD
Age, years	21.3 ± 1.4
Bolus granulometry parameters
D50 (µm)	2034.33 ± 475.80
D50^a(µm)	8668.69 ± 1828.74
D50^b(µm)	3135.23 ± 722.24
D50^c(µm)	2293.44 ± 565.51
Kinematic parameters
CC	20.42 ± 6.94
CC^a	5.19 ± 1.76
CC^b	10.33 ± 3.45
CC^c	15.38 ± 5.26
CF(s^− 1)	1.57 ± 0.26
CF^a(s^− 1)	1.73 ± 0.38
CF^b(s^− 1)	1.68 ± 0.33
CF^c(s^− 1)	1.65 ± 0.27
Acoustic parameters
MI(dB)	60.58 ± 4.51
MI^a(dB)	65.78 ± 4.57
MI^b(dB)	63.29 ± 4.50
MI^c(dB)	61.80 ± 4.49
MP(Hz)	2251.25 ± 694.25
MP^a(Hz)	2268.94 ± 777.35
MP^b(Hz)	2251.15 ± 703.71
MP^c(Hz)	2241.46 ± 710.52

As seen in Table 2, independent t-tests indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in mastication sound pitch (MP, MP^a, MP^b, MP^c) or chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c) when comparing the sexes. Statistically significant differences were found in the chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c), mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) and median particle size (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) between the sexes.

Table 2

Mean values (± SD) of D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c, CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c, MP, MP^a, MP^b, MP^c, MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c, CF, CF^a, CF^b and CF^c of the four chewing sequences with the quantitative food by gender
Parameters	Mean ± SD		Independent t test comparisons
Parameters	Male (n = 28)	Female (n = 28)	Independent t test comparisons
D50 (µm)	1690.15 ± 306.69	2378.50 ± 348.40	p < 0.01
D50^a (µm)	7653.73 ± 1492.11	9683.65 ± 1566.28	p < 0.01
D50^b (µm)	2564.77 ± 482.50	3705.69 ± 553.95	p < 0.01
D50^c (µm)	1869.50 ± 346.37	2717.38 ± 398.24	p < 0.01
CC	23.15 ± 6.08	17.69 ± 6.77	p < 0.01
CC^a	5.92 ± 1.55	4.46 ± 1.68	p < 0.01
CC^b	11.65 ± 3.06	9.00 ± 3.36	p < 0.01
CC^c	17.50 ± 4.64	13.27 ± 5.06	p < 0.01
CF (s^− 1)	1.51 ± 0.28	1.63 ± 0.23	NS*
CF^a (s^− 1)	1.64 ± 0.38	1.82 ± 0.36	NS*
CF^b (s^− 1)	1.61 ± 0.30	1.76 ± 0.28	NS*
CF^c (s^− 1)	1.57 ± 0.30	1.73 ± 0.22	NS*
MI (dB)	63.90 ± 2.88	57.27 ± 3.22	p < 0.01
MI^a (dB)	68.59 ± 3.17	62.97 ± 3.37	p < 0.01
MI^b (dB)	66.52 ± 2.86	60.06 ± 3.37	p < 0.01
MI^c (dB)	65.11 ± 2.85	58.49 ± 3.23	p < 0.01
MP (Hz)	2246.54 ± 545.22	2255.97 ± 828.21	NS*
MP^a (Hz)	2361.47 ± 744.58	2176.20 ± 812.67	NS*
MP^b (Hz)	2285.41 ± 570.47	2216.88 ± 826.05	NS*
MP^c (Hz)	2255.19 ± 567.74	2227.73 ± 840.92	NS*

* There was no statistically significant difference.

As shown in Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Fig S.1, the mean values (± SD) of men were significantly lower than those of women in the comparison of the median particle size (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c). Meanwhile, the mean values (± SD) of the chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c) and mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) were significantly higher for men than for women.

As shown in Fig. 2, one-way ANOVA found no statistically significant differences in the chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c) and mastication sound pitch (MP, MP^a, MP^b, MP^c) between the sexes.

There was a significant difference in mastication sound intensity and median particle size. For mastication sound intensity, the significant variation existed between the first-phase data (MI) and the data from other three phases (MI^a, MI^b, MI^c), and the value of MI was considerably higher than the values of MI^a, MI^b and MI^c. In addition, there was a significant difference between the second-phase data (MI^a) and the fourth-phase data (MI^c), and MI^a was much higher than MI^c. For median particle size, the results were similar. The first-phase data D50 were noticeably different from the other three phases (D50^a, D50^b, D50^c), and the value of D50 was significantly higher than those of D50^a, D50^b and D50^c. In the meantime, the significant difference was found between the second phase data (D50^a) and the fourth-phase data (D50^c), and D50^a was considerably higher than D50^c.

As shown in Table 3, Fig. 3 and Additional file 1: Fig S.2, Pearson’s correlation coefficients showed that mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) was significantly negatively correlated with median particle size (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in all four phase (r=-0.94, r=-0.85, r=-0.94, r=-0.95), which indicates that mastication sound intensity may be a sensitive indicator of mastication degree.

Table 3

Pearson correlation analysis between acoustic and masticatory parameters in four phases of the chewing process with quantitative food
Parameters of the first phase	Pearson Value
Parameters of the first phase	D50 (µm)	CC	CF (s^− 1)
MI (dB)	-0.94^*	0.31	-0.01
MP (Hz)	0.20	-0.03	0.08

Parameters of the second phase	Pearson Value
Parameters of the second phase	D50^a (µm)	CC ^a	CF^a (s^− 1)
MI^a (dB)	-0.85^*	0.35	0.07
MP^a (Hz)	0.10	-0.01	-0.04

Parameters of the third phase	Pearson Value
Parameters of the third phase	D50^b (µm)	CC ^b	CF^b (s^− 1)
MI^b (dB)	-0.94^*	0.29	0.02
MP^b (Hz)	0.12	0.01	0.03

Parameters of the fourth phase	Pearson Value
Parameters of the fourth phase	D50^c (µm)	CC ^c	CF^c (s^− 1)
MI^c (dB)	-0.95^*	0.31	-0.05
MP^c (Hz)	0.15	-0.01	0.01

*r > 0.80 or r<-0.80, highly correlated.

This research was a continuing study of the evaluation of mastication by acoustic parameters. In a recent study, mastication sound intensity showed meaningful value and the advantages of the experimental process, when assessing mastication performance.²¹ Combining the conventional indicators for reference, we processed the characterization of acoustic parameters in various phases of chewing. The results showed that the acoustic indices, and mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) expressed significant differences in sexes and high correlations with the essential parameters in all four chewing phases. Furthermore, based on the evaluation of mastication performance, characterization of the different chewing phases and the accuracy and comprehensiveness in the experimental process, mastication sound may be a more meaningful indicator in the exploration of masticatory physiology.

In this study, owing to the sound sensitivity, we chose the natural raw peanut as the test food for the masticatory sample, which is more fragile than many other test samples.^26,27 The two types of mainstream indicators of mastication, kinematic parameters and bolus granulometry, were chosen for the comparative data. The kinematic parameters (chewing cycles and chewing frequency) were demonstrated to be valid for use in the electromyographic-analysis of masticatory muscles, and chewing frequency was more valuable than the other kinematic parameters.^28–33 However, in a previous study of chewing rate, chewing frequencies largely varied among individuals.¹⁴ In contrast to kinematic parameters (chewing cycles and chewing frequency), the median particle size of the food bolus granulometry images was a more reliable and effective method to assess mastication.^9–11 A systematic review observed that combining bolus granulometry and kinematic parameters in the same mastication process appeared to be a good approach for assessing masticatory performance.³³ Generally, on the basis of previous studies, the median particle size of bolus granulometry was an accurate indicator to evaluate mastication, and kinematic parameters provided valuable guidance.^32,34−39

When compare by sex, chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c), mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) and the granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) expressed significant differences. In a previous study of mastication and biting force, there existed the significant differences in genders and men showed a greater bite force and chewing degree than women when the subjects were asked to masticate the quantitative food.^{11,26,40−43} The results of prior research are in accordance with this study, and a higher degree of chewing result in smaller food boluses because of the increased number of chewing cycles.^32,40,44 Although chewing frequency could be a valuable indicator of mastication in some research,^29,32 it varied unstably and rheologically in the overall chewing sequence.^14,45 This study showed that chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c) did not express a noticeable difference by sex. However, the analysis of mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c), which represents the volume and energy of the sound wave⁴⁶, displayed a significant difference by sex. Since the masticatory sound was a single tone and involved solid-bone transmission, the parameter of mastication sound intensity (MI) indicated the sound energy of the occlusion produced by masticatory movement.^47,48 This result suggested that the variation in mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) was in accordance with the conventional indicators of chewing cycles (CC, CC^a, CC^b, CC^c) and the granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in all four phases of mastication.

In the further intragroup variation analysis of each parameter, expect for the number of chewing cycles in the four phases, the results showed that the trend throughout the four stages of mastication was similar in mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) and the granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c). In these two parameters, the data of the second phase, which processed the initial mastication, were significantly different from the data of the other phases, and noticeable differences existed between the second phase and the fourth phase. It makes sense that food boluses decrease with more chewing cycles. This finding indicates that the deformation of hard food occurred to the greatest extent in the initial chewing phase, the trend gradually flattened in the intermediate phase of the mastication process, and the volume of food boluses significantly decreased in the last phase. Additionally, the index of mastication sound intensity synchronously varied with the shape of the food bolus. This result shows that mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) may be a meaningful indicator of assessing mastication, as its variation consisted with the granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in each stage of the chewing sequence. The parameters of mastication sound pitch (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) various little in the comparison of sexes and intragroup. Based on previous studies, mastication sound pitch may be more relative to the texture of food¹⁶. There was no significant difference in chewing frequency (CF, CF^a, CF^b, CF^c), which was in agreement with the previous study of chewing various food in masticatory sequence.¹⁴ Actually, assessing mastication by chewing frequency remains controversial in previous studies.^14,45 As the result of this study, chewing frequency was less sensitive in evaluation of mastication than mastication sound intensity and the granulometry of food boluses.

In the following analysis of correlation among the acoustic and conventional parameters, mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) revealed that a significant negative correlation with the granulometry of food boluses (D50, D50^a, D50^b, D50^c) in all four phases of the masticatory process (r=-0.94, r=-0.85, r=-0.94, r=-0.95). As a result, the more mastication sound energy expressed by subjects, the smaller food boluses they produced. These results indicate that mastication sound intensity (MI, MI^a, MI^b, MI^c) would be a valuable and sensitive indicator of mastication in every phase of the chewing sequence.

Early acoustic studies on mastication mainly focused on food texture and the relationship between mastication and swallowing, and further studies are lacking because of the sound capture device and analysis software^{17–19, 22}. Recently, the acoustic studies in the area of chewing showed that mastication sound intensity was crucial in the evaluation of mastication performance by means of the bone-conducted tech.²¹ The same adapterization device of the bone-conducted tech and advanced acoustic analysis software were used in this study to further explore the variation and the relationship between the acoustic and conventional parameters in all chewing phases. Theoretically, by the advantage of the independent adapterization in bone-conducted tech, the collection of acoustic data is more complete than sieved boluses, and the analysis of acoustic data is more precise than the kinematic parameters.

In most acoustic studies on mastication, the experimental indicators were limited to sound frequency and electromyography. Sound frequency was significantly correlated with the value of electromyography; nevertheless, it could not be used to evaluate the mastication process.^47–51 Fundamentally, sound frequency expresses the vibrational speed of soundwaves rather than the vibrational energy.⁴⁷ It is reasonably understood that mastication sound pitch could not be used to evaluate the chewing process. In summary, mastication sound intensity could be a new and meaningful research direction in mastication.

Additionally, the acoustic experiment in mastication is an advanced method compared with conventional methods. In addition to the problem of accuracy and integrity of acoustic data adapterization being solved by a bone-conducted device in an appropriate way, the kinematic parameters of chewing cycles and chewing time could be counted and annotated synchronously by the emergence of soundwave crests. Furthermore, the acoustic experiment could be performed in a single quiet room without laboratory procedures. In summary, both the method and parameters of acoustic studies would be a novel direction in masticatory studies.

In this research, based on the advantages of bone-conducted tech, the further study of the mastication process was conducted using conventional and acoustic methods. Mastication sound intensity was found to have a strong correlation with the food bolus size in all four phases of mastication. In comparison between sexes, a similar variation was found in mastication sound intensity, food boluses size and chewing cycles. And in intragroup comparison mastication sound varies homogeneously with food boluses size. The highlight of this study was we measured the relationship of acoustic and conventional parameters in each phase of the chewing sequence, which further demonstrate the sensitivity and reliability of mastication sound intensity in assessing mastication process. The results showed that the mastication sound intensity could be a valuable indicator in every masticatory phase. Additionally, the acoustic parameter of mastication could facilitate the acoustic database construction and the further evaluation study of mastication in the area of texture of various food, the dental restoration and treatment of temporomandibular disorder.

D50: median particle size in the first mastication phase

D50^a: median particle size in the second mastication phase

D50^b: median particle size in the third mastication phase

D50^c: median particle size in the fourth mastication phase

CC: chewing cycles in the first mastication phase

CC^a: chewing cycles in the second mastication phase

CC^b: chewing cycles in the third mastication phase

CC^c: chewing cycles in the fourth mastication phase

CF: chewing frequency in the first mastication phase

CF^a: chewing frequency in the second mastication phase

CF^b: chewing frequency in the third mastication phase

CF^c: chewing frequency in the fourth mastication phase

MP: mastication sound pitch in the first mastication phase

MP^a: mastication sound pitch in the second mastication phase

MP^b: mastication sound pitch in the third mastication phase

MP^c: mastication sound pitch in the fourth mastication phase

MI: mastication sound intensity in the first mastication phase

MI^a: mastication sound intensity in the second mastication phase

MI^b: mastication sound intensity in the third mastication phase

MI^c: mastication sound intensity in the fourth mastication phase

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Clinical Specialties Project (Orthodontic); (Grant document No. 2013544). We thank all dentists and dental assistants at Tianjin Stomatological Hospital (Tianjin, China) for their assistance.

We also thank the College of Intelligence and Computing of Tianjin University.

(Tianjin, China) for providing help with the use of the BONE VIBRATION HEAD[1]GEAR (Model: HG17 series) and SONY ZOOM H4N recording devices.

Authors' contributions

YX contributed to the implementation of the study, data acquisition, design, data acquisition and interpretation, carried out the statistical analysis; and drafted and critically revised the manuscript.

LW contributed to the conception and interpretation, drafted the initial report and critically revised the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published

article [and its supplementary information files.

Funding

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The experimental protocol was established, according to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of Tianjin Stomatology Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and their guardians.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

The informed consent of trial subjects had been uploaded in the section of Related files.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Andries van der Bilt., L. Engelen, L.J. Pereira, H.W. van der Glas, J.H. Abbink, Oral physiology and mastication. Physiology & Behavior 89 (2006) 22–27.
Dahlberg BH., The masticatory effect a new test and an analysis of mastication in more or less defective set of teeth. 1st edition, Lund, H. Ohlssons boktryckeri, Sweden, 1942.
Eberhard L, Schneider S, Eiffler C, Kappel S, & Giannakopoulos NN, Particle size distributions determined by optical scanning and by sieving in the assessment of masticatory performance of complete denture wearers. J. Clin. Oral Investig. 19 (2) (2015) 429–436.
Mowlana F, Heath MR, Andries van der Bilt, & van der Glas HW, Assessment of chewing efficiency-A comparison of particle size distribution determined using optical scanning and sieving of almonds. J. Oral Rehabil. 21 (5) (1994) 545–551.
Eberhard L, Schindler HJ, Hellmann D, Schmitter D, Comparison of particle size distributions determined by optical scanning and by sieving in the assessment of masticatory performance. J. Oral Rehabil. 39 (5) (2012) 338–348.
Sugiura T, Fueki K, & Igarashi Y, Comparisons between a mixing ability test and masticatory performance tests using a brittle or an elastic test food. J. Oral Rehabil. 36 (2009) (3) 159–167.
Prinz JF, Quantitative evaluation of the effect of bolus size and number of chewing strokes on the intra‐oral mixing of a two-colour chewing gum. J. Oral Rehabil. 26 (3) (1999) 243–247.
Wada S, Kawate N, Mizuma M, What Type of Food Can Older Adults Masticate? Evaluation of Mastication Performance Using Color-Changeable Chewing Gum. J. Dysphagia. 32 (2017) (5) 636-643.
Sanchez‐Ayala A, Vilanova LS, Costa MA, & Farias-Neto A, Reproducibility of a silicone‐based test food to masticatory performance evaluation by different sieve methods. J. Braz. Oral Res. (28) (2014) 806-832.
Sanchez‐Ayala A, Farias Neto A, Vilanova LS, Costa MA, Paiva AC, Carreiro Ada F, et al., Reproducibility, reliability, and validity of fuchsin-based beads for the evaluation of masticatory performance. J. Prosthodont. 25 (2016) (6) 446–452.
Woda A, Nicolas E, Mishellany-Dutour A, Hennequin M, Mazille MN, Veyrune JL, Peyron MA, The masticatory normative indicator. J. Dent. Res. (89) (2010) 281–285.
Lepley C, Throckmorton G, Parker S, Buschang PH. Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics-are they related? Angle Orthod. 2010 Mar;80(2):295-301.
Fulks BA, Callaghan KX, Tewksbury CD, Gerstner GE. Relationships between chewing rate, occlusion, cephalometric anatomy, muscle activity, and masticatory performance. Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Nov; 83: 161-168.
Andries van der Bilt., Abbink JH. The influence of food consistency on chewing rate and muscular work. Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Nov; 83:105-110.
Nakamura A, Saito T, Ikeda D, Ohta K, Mineno H, Nishimura MJ, Automatic Detection of Chewing and Swallowing. J. Sensors (Basel). 21 (10) (2021) 33-78.
Andries van der Bilt, Pocztaruk RL, Frasca LC, van der Glas HW, Abbink JH. The influence of auditory and visual information on the neuromuscular control of chewing crispy food. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011 Dec;119(6):427-34.
Edward Sazonov, Stephanie Schuckers, Paulo Lopez-Meyer, Oleksandr Makeyev, Nadezhda Sazonova, Edward L Melanson and Michael Neuman, Non-invasive monitoring of chewing and swallowing for objective quantification of ingestive behavior, J. Physiol. Meas. (29) (2008) 525–541.
Charles H. Gibbs, Parker E. Mahan, Harry C. Lundeen, Kenneth Brehnan, Edward K. Walsh, William B. Holbrook, Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission, J. Prosthet. Dent. 10 (46) (1981) 443-439.
Kaoru Kohyama, Hiroko Sawada, Miho Nonaka, Chiharu Kobori, Fumiyo Hayakawa, Tomoko Sasaki, Textural evaluation of rice cake by chewing and swallowing measurements on human subjects, J. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 71 (2007) (2) 358-365.
Wintergerst AM, Buschang PH, Hutchins B, Throckmorton GS. Effect of an auditory cue on chewing cycle kinematics. Arch Oral Biol. 2006 Jan;51(1):50-7.
Xia Y, Wang L. Study of occlusal acoustic parameters in assessing masticatory performance. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Mar 15;22(1):74.
Bagnall RD, Tyson KW, Sources of error in gnathosonics, J. Dent. (20) (1992) 377-378.
Tadashi Nishimuraa, Tadao Okayasu, Osamu Saito, An examination of the effects of broadband air-conduction masker on the speech intelligibility of speech-modulated b-one-conduction ultrasound, J. Hearing Research. 317 (11) (2014) 41-49.
Sabine Reinfeldt, Bo Håkansson, Hamidreza Taghavi, Måns Eeg-Olofsson, New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review, J. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research. (8) (2015): 79–93.
Paul Boersma and Vincent van Heuven, Speak and unSpeak with Praat. Glot International 5(9/10): 341-345.
In Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut & Gjert Kristoffersen (eds.). The use of Praat in corpus research. The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology, 342-360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elgestad Stjernfeldt P, Sjögren P, Wårdh I, Boström AM. Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance. J Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019;5(1):76–104.
Andries van der Bilt, Engelen L, Pereira LJ, van der Glas HW, Abbink JH. Oral physiology and mastication. Physiol Behav. 2006 Aug 30;89(1):22-7.
Peyron MA, Lassauzay C, Woda A, Effects of increased hardness on jaw movement and muscle activity during chewing of viscoelastic model foods. J. Exp. Brain. Res2 (142) (2000) 41–51.
Youssef RE, Throckmorton GS, Ellis E III, Douglas PS, Comparison of habitual patterns in men and women using a custom computer program. J. Prosthet. Dent. (78) (1997) 179–186.
Al. Modesto de Abreu R, Max Domingues Pereira, Fabianne Furtado, Gabriela Pereira Ribeiro Prado, Wilson Mestriner Jr, Lydia Masako Ferreira, Masticatory efficiency and bite force in individuals with normal occlusion. J. Arch. Oral. Biol. 59 (10) (2014) 1065-1074.
Lassauzay C, Peyron MA, Albuisson E, Dransfield E, Woda A, Variability of the masticatory process during chewing of elastic model foods. Eur. J. Oral Sci. (108) (2000) 484–492.
Woda A, Foster K, Mishellany A, Peyron MA, Adaptation of healthy mastication to factors pertaining to the individual or to the food. J. Physiol. Behav. 89 (1) (2006) 28-35.
Nicolas E, Veyrune JL, Lassauzay C, Peyron MA, Hennequin M, Validation of video versus electromyography for chewing evaluation of the elderly wearing a complete denture. J. Oral. Rehabil. 34 (8) (2007) 566-71.
Bonnet G, Batisse C, Peyron MA, Nicolas E, Hennequin M, Which variables should be controlled when measuring the granulometry of a chewed bolus? A systematic review. J. Texture Stud. 50 (3) (2019) 194-216.
Decerle N, Nicolas E, & Hennequin M, Chewing deficiencies in adults with multiple untreated carious lesions. J. Caries Research, 47 (4) (2013) 330–337.
Mishellany A, Renaud J, Peyron MA, Woda A, Influence of age and denture on mastication and food bolus, C. Amsterdam IADR-CED 2005.
Mishellany A, Woda A, Labas R & Peyron MA, The challenge of mastication: Preparing a bolus suitable for deglutition. J. Dysphagia 21 (2) (2006) 87–94.
Mishellany-Dutour A, Peyron MA, Croze J, François O, Hartmann C, Alric M, & Woda A, Comparison of food boluses prepared in vivo and by the AM2 mastication simulator. J. Food Quality and Preference. 22 (4) (2011) 326–331
Veyrune JL, Ope S, Nicolas E, Woda A, & Hennequin M, Changes in mastication after an immediate loading implantation with complete fixed rehabilitation. J. Clinical Oral Investigations. 17 (4) (2013) 1127–1134.
Peyron MA, Blanc O, Lund JP, Woda A. Influence of age on adaptability of human mastication. J Neurophysiol. 2004 Aug;92(2):773-9.
Bakke M, Holm B, Jensen BL, Michler L, Möller E. Unilateral, isometric bite force in 8-68-year-old women and men related to occlusal factors. Scand J Dent Res. 1990 Apr;98(2):149-58.
Poli O, Manzon L, Niglio T, Ettorre E, Vozza I. Masticatory Force in Relation with Age in Subjects with Full Permanent Dentition: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jun 9;9(6):700.
Kaur H, Singh N, Gupta H, Chakarvarty A, Sadana P, Gupta N, Kochhar A, Bhasin R. Effect of various malocclusion on maximal bite force- a systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022 Sep-Oct;12(5):687-693. 44. Ashiga H, Takei E, Magara J, Takeishi R, Tsujimura T, Nagoya K, Inoue M. Effect of attention on chewing and swallowing behaviors in healthy humans. Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 12;9(1):6013.
Foster KD, Woda A, Peyron MA. Effect of texture of plastic and elastic model foods on the parameters of mastication. J Neurophysiol. 2006 Jun;95(6):3469-79.
Mullin WJ. Fundamentals of sound with applications to speech and hearing. 1st ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2002.
Beranek L, et al., Acoustics: Sound Fields and Transducers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. (8) (2013) 134.
Gonçalves TM, Schimmel M, van der Bilt A, Chen J, et al. Consensus on the terminologies and methodologies for masticatory assessment. J Oral Rehabil. 2021;48(6):745–61.
Hedzelek W, Hornowski T. The analysis of frequency of occlusal sounds in patients with periodontal diseases and gnathic dysfunction. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25:139–45.
Kohyama K, Sawada H, Nonaka M, Kobori C, Hayakawa F, Sasaki T. Textural evaluation of rice cake by chewing and swallowing measurements on human subjects. J Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007;71(2):358–65
Sazonov E, Schuckers S, Lopez-Meyer P, Makeyev O, Sazonova N, Melan[1]son EL, Neuman M. Non-invasive monitoring of chewing and swallow[1]ing for objective quantifcation of ingestive behavior. J Physiol Meas. 2008; 29:525–41.

No competing interests reported.

SupplementMaterials.doc

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Characterization of Acoustic Parameters in Phases of Masticatory Sequence

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1