n OCCLUSION

Relationship Between Chewing Rate and Masticatory

Performance
Alfonso Snchez-Ayala, D.D.S., M.Sc.; Arcelino Farias-Neto, D.D.S., Ph.D.;
Nara Hellen Campanha, D.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.;
Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia, D.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.

0886-9634/3102000$0.25/pp, THE
JOURNAL OF
CRANIOMANDIBULAR
& SLEEP PRACTICE,
Copyright 2013
by CHROMA, Inc.
Manuscript received
September 11, 2011;
accepted
May 2, 2012
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Renata C.M. Rodrigues
Garcia
Dept. of Prosthodontics
and Periodontology
Piracicaba Dental School
State University of Campinas
Avenida Limeira,
n 901 Bairro Areio
Piracicaba, SP
Brazil CEP 13414-903
Email:
regarcia@fop.unicamp.br

ABSTRACT: The influence of mandibular movement timing on food breakdown remains unclear. The
authors, therefore, sought to relate chewing rate with masticatory performance. Chewing rate, defined
as the number of masticatory cycles habitually achieved per minute, was measured in 55 healthy
dentulous subjects (age, 22.25.0 years). Subjects were grouped according to obtained values
(cycles/minute): slower: <70; middle: 70-90; and faster: >90. Masticatory performance was determined
through the sieve method, and the estimated comminuted median particle size (X50). Data was
analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests (=.05). Subjects with slower chewing rates
showed higher (p<.05) masticatory performance (X50 = 3.050.77 mm). X50 was associated with
chewing rate when subjects were categorized as better or poorer performers (chi-square=11.25,
p<.005). Thus, chewing rate was related to masticatory performance, with smaller food particles being
achieved with a slower chewing rate.

asticatory function is a physical and chemical

process whereby food is comminuted by occlusal surfaces and moistened by saliva to
create a cohesive bolus of small particles suitable for
swallowing.1 The mechanical component of masticatory
function is the most critical, because the cohesive force
among food particles and subsequent digestive episodes
depend on the particle size.2 Optimal masticatory performance is influenced by intraoral characteristics, such as
the number of occlusal pairs, size and shape of teeth, and
soft tissue motility,2,3 as well as by extraoral determinants, such as skeletal features, articular kinematics, and
jaw muscle lines of action.4
Jaw muscles are activated by the motor cortex, which
initiates and stops the masticatory sequences and provides preprogrammed movement patterns, depending on
expectations and feedback.5 Under voluntary control,
chewing largely occurs automatically, such that little
conscious effort is required once mastication is initiated.6
The central pattern generator provides the basic rhythmic
activity of masticatory movements,7 which are continuously modified by peripheral inputs, depending on
changes in food texture and oral conditions.8

Dr. Alfonso Snchez-Ayala received his

D.D.S. degree from the Stomatology
School, Peruvian University of Cayetano
Heredia in 2004 and his M.Sc. degree in
dentistry in 2008 at the Dentistry School,
State University of Ponta Grossa.
Currently, he is pursuing a Ph.D. at the
Piracicaba Dental School, State
University of Campinas.

CHEWING RATE AND MASTICATORY PERFORMANCE

The maximum ranges of anteroposterior, vertical, and

lateral jaw excursions are reportedly narrower for faster
chewing rates.9,10 Several studies have shown that subjects with progressive increases in chewing rate show
decreasing amplitudes of masticatory movement, proportionally lower electromyographic activities of the digastric and jaw closing muscles,11,12 reduced masticatory
performances,13 and poorer mixing abilities.14 In contrast,
Wilding and Lewin15 concluded that a faster chewing rate
is associated with higher masticatory performance.
Meanwhile, Leplay, et al.16 found no differences in cycle
duration between subjects with poorer and better masticatory performances.
The differences between these various studies could be
due to the methodologies used to control chewing rate,
which was intentionally or arbitrarily increased or
decreased through use of a metronome.9-13 By requiring
these tasks, the experimenter may have altered the conscious/unconscious nature of the masticatory process.
Moreover, mastication could have been more influenced
by factors, such as adaptation capacity,17 personality,18
and/or understanding of the masticatory task instructions,11 than by the chewing rate itself.
When the chewing rate is deliberately increased without changing food hardness, the contribution of peripherally induced muscle activity decreases from 85% to only
40%, 19 which could affect masticatory performance.
Furthermore, the cycle-to-cycle variability and jaw
excursions performed during intentionally modified
chewing are reduced compared to those during chewing
performed in a habitual manner. This difference is due to
reductions in the variability of the occlusal phase period
and masseters burst durations, and the lower gaps and
ipsilateral deviations during closing, respectively.20
Because subjects can habitually develop a higher or
lower accelerated mandibular rhythm while chewing,10,13,21 it would be interesting to determine the masticatory performance changes produced by slower or faster
chewing rates executed in a habitual manner. And,
because the influence of habitual jaw movement timing
on food particle breakdown during mastication remains
unclear, the aim of this study was to determine the relationship between different chewing rates and masticatory
performance in a sample of fully dentate adults.

Materials and Methods

Subjects
Fifty-five dental students (29 male and 26 female;
mean age, 22.25.0 years) composed the sample. Subjects
were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: good general health, presence of all natural teeth not
2

SANCHEZ-AYALA ET AL.

including third molars, and normocclusion diagnosed by

the presence of canine and molar Angle Class I relationship, overjet of 1-4 mm, overbite of 30-50%, and absence
of posterior open or crossbite. Presence of systemic diseases, nursing or pregnancy, diet regime, neuromuscular
problems, xerostomia (dry mouth), orofacial or dental
pain, periodontal disease, occlusal caries, severe dental
wear, and orthodontic treatments in the last three years
were considered as exclusion criteria. The necessary
number of subjects to compose the sample (n=33) was
statistically calculated with a paired Students t-test from
the means and standard deviations of the median particle
size found according to Buschang, et al.,13 in which different induced chewing rates were applied. The Ethics
Committee of Cayetano Heredia University approved the
research protocol, and written informed consent was
obtained from all participants.

Masticatory Performance Evaluation

The masticatory performance of all subjects was evaluated using a sieve method. 2 A silicon test material
(Optosil Plus, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) was
manipulated according to the manufacturers instructions
and was prepared in molds to form cylinders of 20 mm in
diameter, 5 mm in height, and approximately 2.5 g in
mass. Each cylinder was cut into four quarters and was
stored for up to five days at room temperature.
Each patient received three-quarters of a portion,
weighing approximately 2 g, and was instructed to chew
it in a habitual manner.22 After 20 chewing cycles were
counted by the examiner, the particles were expectorated
into a beaker. The subject rinsed his or her mouth with
200 mL of water and expectorated the water into the same
container. The task was repeated five times, until approximately 10 g of silicon test material had been comminuted.
The chewed particles obtained were rinsed with 200
mL of water, dried in an oven (Odontobrs EL-1.1,
Ribeiro Preto, SP, Brazil) at 80C for 25 min, and sieved
through a stack of up to 10 sieves with mesh sizes of 0.5,
0.71, 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, and 11.2 mm, in a
Ro-Tap sieving machine (Ro-Tap RX-29, Laval Lab,
Inc., Quebec, Canada) for two minutes. The test material
retained in each sieve was collected and weighed on a
0.01-g analytical balance (M-220, Denver Instrument,
Denver, Colorado). Masticatory performance was
described through the median particle size (X50) with the
Rosin-Rammler equation (nonlinear regression analysis):QW (X) = 1 - 2 (X/X50)b, where QW is the percentage
by weight of particles with a size smaller than X. X50 is the
aperture of a theoretical sieve through which 50% of the
weight can pass, and b represents the breadth of the dis-

THE JOURNAL OF CRANIOMANDIBULAR & SLEEP PRACTICE

APRIL 2013, VOL. 31, NO. 2

SANCHEZ-AYALA ET AL.

tribution.13 A small median particle size indicates that the

silicon test material has been well fragmented and, thus,
the masticatory performance is high. Subjects were categorized as better or poorer performers if they obtained a
median particle size that was larger or smaller, respectively, than the median value for the entire sample (3.77
mm).16

Chewing Rate Assessment

During the masticatory performance test, the time
needed to complete 20 chewing cycles in each of the five
repetitions was registered in seconds by a calibrated
examiner with a chronometer (Seiko W073, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada). The mandibular movement was closely
observed by the examiner, and the beginning and end of
each cycle was determined when maximum intercuspation position was reached. Subjects were not informed of
this evaluation and were instructed to chew in their habitual manner.1 After this measurement, the number of masticatory cycles performed per minute was calculated. The
values of five tasks were averaged and defined as the
chewing rate. According to the average values, subjects
were divided into three groups: slower: <70 cycles/min
(n=20); middle: 70-90 cycles/min (n=20); and faster: >90
cycles/min (n=15).

Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 17.0
software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), and statistical significance was set at <.05. Mean values of the variables
were calculated for each group of subjects. Assumptions
of normality and homogeneity of variances were
explored and met through Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Levene tests. Sample uniformity was tested for age,
according to chewing rate groups, by applying one-way
ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. These tests were also
used to compare the masticatory performance values of
each chewing rate group. The association between median
particle size and chewing rate was determined through
the chi-square test and proportion comparisons through
the Bonferroni method.
Results

Table 1 demonstrates that the sample was homogeneously distributed. There was no significant difference
between groups for age in male (p=.531) and female
(p=.150) subjects. The overall chewing rate found in the
sample was 78.617.1 cycles/minutes. Subjects with
slower chewing rates showed significantly (p<.05) lower
median particle sizes (3.050.77 mm) than subjects presenting middle (4.080.99 mm) and faster (4.160.92

APRIL 2013, VOL. 31, NO. 2

CHEWING RATE AND MASTICATORY PERFORMANCE

mm) chewing rates. The last two groups did not differ
from each other (p=0.97). The frequencies of better and
poorer performers, according to the chewing rate groups,
are presented in Table 2. There was an association
(p<.005) between masticatory performance and chewing
rate (chi-square=11.25), with a slower chewing rate being
more prominent in the group of subjects with better masticatory performance (p<.05).
Discussion

To minimize confounding variables and improve the

confidence level, the experimental design included a
sample standardized by occlusal status and age (Table 1).
Additionally, the mean habitual chewing rate over five
repetitions was calculated for all subjects and was used
during the analysis to decrease the inherent variability of
the masticatory performance test.
The average chewing rate of the whole sample obtained
here is similar to the results obtained by Buschang,
et al.13 (79.2 cycles/min), but is higher than the values
found by Throckmorton, et al. 10 (65.5 cycles/min),
Yoshida, et al.14 (58.3 cycles/min), and Gomes, et al.23
(50.8 cycles/min). Differences can be explained by the
test food chosen during the masticatory performance
tests. Buschang, et al. used the same cylindrical silicon
test material as was employed in the present study,
whereas the other studies utilized gum, wax, and silicone
cubes, respectively. However, the current studys results
and those cited previously are within the range of
chewing rates established by Bates, et al. 21 (58-120
cycles/min).
There appears to be an influence of the timing in which
the masticatory cycles are accomplished on the capacity
to comminute. Masticatory performance was increased
when subjects chewed the silicon test material at a slower
rate (Table 2). These results agree with Yoshida, et al.14
and Gomes, et al.23 who observed higher values of mixing
ability and masticatory performance, respectively, when
the subject chewed slowly.
These findings may be explained by changes in the
power output of the jaw. The chewing rate is constantly
executed from low to moderate food toughness.24,25 This
constancy is achieved by the gradual increasing of the
jaw power output, which is defined as the rate of effort
put forth by the muscles. When food with increased
toughness is chewed, the limit of comfortable power
output is still reached. The power output also remains
approximately constant beyond this point, but in this
case, the constancy is achieved by slowing the rate of
open-close mandibular movements.26
The hardness of the silicon test material also may influTHE JOURNAL OF CRANIOMANDIBULAR & SLEEP PRACTICE

CHEWING RATE AND MASTICATORY PERFORMANCE

SANCHEZ-AYALA ET AL.

Table 1
Sample Age (Mean Standard Deviation) According to Chewing Rate Groups
Male (n)

Age (years)

25.56.26

Female (n)

Age (years)

Total (n)
min: minute
n: number

Slower
(<70)
12

Age (years)

Chewing rate (cycles/min)

Middle
Faster
(70-90)
(>90)
9
8
23.677.19

20.132.42

11

20.251.12

21.734.38

20.291.60

20

20

15

23.405.60

22.605.74

Table 2
Association Between Chewing Rate
and Masticatory Performance
Better performer
(X503.77 mm)

Poorer performer

Chewing rate (cycles/min)

Slower
Middle
Faster
(<70)
(70-90)
(>90)
16*

12

11

(X50>3.77 mm)
min: minute
X50 = median particle size
*p<.05

ence the jaw power output. Optosil requires a greater

amount of force to yield than natural foods, such as
turnips, carrots, or peanuts.27,28 It generates an activity of
the jaw elevator muscles of 612 V, which is between the
activities produced by peanuts (588 V) and whole-meal
bread (648 V).29 Thus, subjects with slower chewing
4

20.202.01

p-value
.531

.150

.164

rates may apply more force during mastication, which

could mean a greater capacity to comminute.
The coupling between slower chewing rate and higher
masticatory performance may also be explained by
increases in selection chance and breakage function.
Selection chance is the probability that food particles are
captured by the teeth.30 Breakage function is the process
by which selected particles are fractured into fragments
of different sizes.31 The food particles are successively
selected, and may have the opportunity to fill the available breakage sites, which increase proportionally after
breakage and decrease when new food particles are
selected. 32 Therefore, despite the use of homogenous
influential factors, such as the employed test food33 and
occlusion,34 some subjects may be better able to select
more food particles between teeth by more favorable sensorial responses and motility of the tongue and soft tissue.
Tongue activity involves the rotation, tilting, and pushing of food. Cheek movement pushes the food medially
on the occlusal surface and around the tongue. 35,36 A
higher selection chance may determine the compression
of additional food particles between teeth, increasing the
breakage function. Consequently, these subjects could
have higher mechanical resistance to reach maximum
intercuspation, probably decreasing the chewing rate by
enhancing the occlusal phase period.37 This hypothesis
has been corroborated by Throckmorton, et al.,10 who
suggested that the application of an induced slower chewing rate increases the duration of the masticatory cycle.

THE JOURNAL OF CRANIOMANDIBULAR & SLEEP PRACTICE

APRIL 2013, VOL. 31, NO. 2

SANCHEZ-AYALA ET AL.

Conclusion

Based on the sample and methodology used, the results

obtained in the present study suggest that the chewing
rate is related to masticatory performance. A smaller
median particle size can be achieved through chewing at
a slower rate.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Abe R, Furuya J, Suzuki T: Videoendoscopic measurement of food bolus formation for quantitative evaluation of masticatory function. J Prosthodont
Res 2011; 55:171-178.
van der Bilt A: Assessment of mastication with implications for oral rehabilitation: a review. J Oral Rehabil 2011; 32:237-241.
Tei K, Yamazaki Y, Ono M, Totsuka Y: The effect of bilateral lingual nerve
anesthesia and increased occlusal vertical dimension on the onset of swallowing in adult males. J Craniomandib Pract 2005; 23:39-47.
Koolstra JH: Number crunching with the human masticatory system. J Dent
Res 2003; 82:672-676.
Sessle BJ: Chapter 5 - Face sensorimotor cortex: its role and neuroplasticity
in the control of orofacial movements. Prog Brain Res 2011; 188:71-82.
Mistry S, Hamdy S: Neural control of feeding and swallowing. Phys Med
Rehabil Clin N Am 2008; 19:709-728.
Westberg KG, Kolta A: The trigeminal circuits responsible for chewing. Int
Rev Neurobiol 2011; 97:77-98.
Lund JP: Chapter 15 - Chew before you swallow. Prog Brain Res 2011;
188:219-228.
Morimoto T, Inoue T, Nakamura T, Kawamura Y: Frequency-dependent
modulation of rhythmic human jaw movements. J Dent Res 1984; 63:13101314.
Throckmorton GS, Buschang BH, Hayasaki H, Phelan T: The effects of
chewing rates on mandibular kinematics. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28:328-334.
Plesh O, Bishop B, McCall WD: Patterns of jaw muscle activity during voluntary chewing. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23:262-269.
Kemsley EK, Defernez M, Sprunt JC, Smith AC: Electromyographic
responses to prescribed mastication. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;
13:197-207.
Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS, Travers KH, Johnson G: The effects of
bolus size and chewing rate on masticatory performance with artificial test
foods. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24:522-526.
Yoshida E, Fueki K, Igarashi Y: Association between food mixing ability and
mandibular movements during chewing of a wax cube. J Oral Rehabil
2007; 34:791-799.
Wilding RJ, Lewin A: The determination of optimal human jaw movements
based on their association with chewing performance. Arch Oral Biol 1994;
39:333-343.
Lepley C, Throckmorton G, Parker S, Buschang PH: Masticatory performance and chewing cycle kinematics-are they related? Angle Orthod 2010;
80:295-301.
Woda A, Foster K, Mishellany A, Peyron MA: Adaptation of healthy mastication to factors pertaining to the individual or to the food. Physiol Behav
2006; 89:28-35.
Ueda T, Sakurai K, Sugiyama T: Individual difference in the number
of chewing strokes and its determinant factors. J Oral Rehabil 2006;
33:85-93.
Abbink JH, van der Bilt A, Bosman F, van der Glas HW: Speed-dependent
control of cyclic open-close movements of the human jaw with an external
force counteracting closing. J Dent Res 1999; 78:878-886.
Plesh O, Bishop B, McCall WD Jr: Comparison of automatic and voluntary
chewing patterns and performance. Exp Neurol 1988; 99:326-341.
Bates JF, Stafford GD, Harrison A: Masticatory function - a review of the literature. II. Speed of movement of the mandible, rate of chewing and forces
developed in chewing. J Oral Rehabil 1975; 2:349-361.
Albert TE, Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS: Masticatory performance: a
protocol for standardized production of an artificial test food. J Oral
Rehabil 2003; 30:720-722.
Gomes SG, Custodio W, Faot F, Del Bel Cury AA, Garcia RC: Masticatory
features, EMG activity and muscle effort of subjects with different facial
patterns. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37:813-819.
Anderson K, Throckmorton GS, Buschang PH, Hayasaki H: The effects of
bolus hardness on masticatory kinematics. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29:689696.

APRIL 2013, VOL. 31, NO. 2

CHEWING RATE AND MASTICATORY PERFORMANCE

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.
30.
31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Hiiemae K: Mechanism of food reduction, transport and deglutition: how the

texture of food affects feeding behavior. J Texture Stud 2004; 35:171-200.
Bourne MC: Food texture and viscosity: concept and measurement, 2nd ed.
Waltham: Elsevier Science, 2002.
Olthoff LW, van der Bilt A, de Boer A, Bosman F: Comparison of forcedeformation characteristics of artificial and several natural foods for chewing experiments. J Texture Stud 1986; 17:275-289.
Slagter AP, van der Glas HW, Bosman F, Olthoff LW: Force-deformation
properties of artificial and natural foods for testing chewing efficiency.
J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:790-799.
Edlund J, Lamm CJ: Masticatory efficiency. J Oral Rehabil 1980; 7:123-130.
van den Braber W, van der Glas HW, van der Bilt A, Bosman F: The influence of orthodontics on selection and breakage underlying food comminution in pre-orthognathic surgery patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;
31:592-597.
van den Braber W, van der Bilt A, van der Glas HW, Bosman F, Rosenberg
A, Koole R: The influence of orthognathic surgery on masticatory performance in retrognathic patients. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32:237-241.
van der Glas HW, van der Bilt A, Bosman F: A selection model to estimate
the interaction between food particles and the post-canine teeth in human
mastication. J Theor Biol 1992: 155:103-120.
Mohamed SE, Harrison JD, Christensen LV. Masticatory tooth contact patterns: cuspid and first molar contacts during mastication of three types of
food. J Craniomandib Pract 1996: 14:266-273.
Gomes SG, Custodio W, Jufer JS, Del Bel CA, Garcia RC. Mastication, EMG
activity and occlusal contact area in subjects with different facial types.
J Craniomandib Pract 2010: 28:274-279.
Mioche L, Hiiemae KM, Palmer JB: A postero-anterior videofluorographic
study of the intra-oral management of food in man. Arch Oral Biol 2002:
47:267-280.
Kawashima K, Miura H, Kato H, Yoshida K, Tanaka Y: The study of comminution behavior of food on buccal and lingual side during mastication.
J Med Dent Sci 2009: 56:131-138.
Peyron MA, Blanc O, Lund JP, Woda A: Influence of age on adaptability of
human mastication. J Neurophysiol 2004: 92:773-779.

Dr. Arcelino Farias-Neto received his D.D.S. degree from the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Norte in 2005 and his M.Sc. degree in
prosthodontics and periodontology in 2009 at the same university. In
2011, he received his Ph.D. in prosthodontics at the Piracicaba Dental
School, State University of Campinas. At present, he is a professor in
prosthodontics at Potiguar University.

Dr. Nara Hellen Campanha Bombarda is a professor in the

Department of Dentistry at the State University of Ponta Grossa. Since
receiving her Ph.D. in oral rehabilitation in 2005 at the Paulista State
University, she has been a researcher of dental materials applied in
prosthodontics.

Dr. Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia is a professor in the

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology at Piracicaba Dental
School, State University of Campinas. Since receiving her Ph.D. in
prosthodontics in 1995 at the same university, she has been involved in
clinical research. In 1997, she took post doctoral training in
craniomandibular disorders at the University of Texas, Health Science
Center at San Antonio.

THE JOURNAL OF CRANIOMANDIBULAR & SLEEP PRACTICE