THE IMPACT OF NEW GENERATION PROSTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES ON CHEWING ABILITY AND PATIENTS' QUALITY OF LIFE
Abstract
Background: Advancements in prosthodontics have revolutionized treatment options for patients suffering from partial or complete edentulism. While traditional removable dentures have been widely used, modern methods—including implant-supported prostheses and digitally designed removable solutions—have the potential to enhance masticatory function and overall quality of life (QOL). Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of modern prosthodontic methods on patients’ masticatory performance and quality of life, comparing outcomes with those seen using conventional prosthodontic techniques. Methods: In this prospective study, 60 patients were divided into two groups: one receiving modern prosthodontic treatment (Group A) and the other treated with conventional methods (Group B). Masticatory function was assessed via bite force measurement, mixing ability tests, and the number of chewing cycles required to achieve a predetermined degree of food comminution. Quality of life was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire, applied before treatment and at a 6-month follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using paired and unpaired t-tests, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Group A showed significantly improved masticatory parameters compared to Group B, including higher bite force (mean value of 450 N vs. 320 N, p < 0.01) and lower chewing cycle counts to achieve optimal food breakdown. Quality of life scores demonstrated a significant improvement in patients treated with modern prosthodontic methods, with mean OHIP-14 scores improving by 40% compared to a 25% improvement in the conventional group. Conclusion: Modern prosthodontic methods provide marked benefits in terms of masticatory performance and overall quality of life when compared to conventional treatments. Clinicians should consider these advancements when planning treatment for patients requiring prosthodontic rehabilitation.
Keywords
Prosthodontics, Masticatory Function, Quality of Life, Implant-supported Prostheses, Removable Dentures, OHIP-14.How to Cite
References
1.Spalj, S., Lajnert, V., & Ivankovic, L. (2014). The psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire—translation and cross-cultural validation in Croatia. Quality of Life Research, 23(4), 1267–1271.
2.Montero, J., López, J. F., Galindo, M. P., Vicente, P., & Bravo, M. (2009). Impact of prosthodontic status on oral wellbeing: A cross-sectional cohort study. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 36, 592–600.
3.Persic, S., Palac, A., Vojvodic, D., & Celebic, A. (2014). Initial effects of a treatment by fixed partial dentures supported by mini dental implants from a patient’s point of view. Collegium Antropologicum, 38(1), 275–278.
4.Abdisalamovich, A.A., 2024. CHANGES IN THE ORAL CAVITY IN PATIENTS USING PROTACRYL-BASED DENTURES. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 4(2-2), pp.66-69.
5.Abdisalamovich, A.A., 2024. FIXATION AND STABILIZATION IN PATIENTS USING A FULLY REMOVABLE PLATE PROSTHESIS MADE OF SILICONE-BASED PLASTIC. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 11(03), pp.97-99.
6.Abdusalomovich, A.A., 2025. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS MATERIALS FOR FIXED DENTURES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BIOCOMPATIBILITY AND DURABILITY. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(03), pp.119-125.
7.Abdusalomovich, Atakhanov Azizbek. "CLINICAL AND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF BRIDGE PROSTHETICS USING INTRA-OSSEOUS IMPLANTS." Russian-Uzbekistan Conference. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2024.
8.Ismoilov, B., 2025. OPTIMIZATION OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND ESTHETIC OUTCOMES IN SELECTIVE CAVITY PREPARATION USING MODERN COMPOSITE AND HYBRID RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT MATERIALS. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 1(2), pp.1356-1359.
9.Cordaro, L., di Torresanto, V. M., Petricevic, N., Jornet, P. R., & Torsello, F. (2013). Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 24, 536–542.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
