ArticlePloS one2018
A novel expert system for objective masticatory efficiency assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the path for standardizing the assessment of masticatory performance : Evaluation of a new test method and development of support software.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Architecture to Infer Kennedy Classification of Partially Edentulous Arches Using Object Detection Techniques and Piecewise Annotations.International dental journal · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision Support: a Focused Literature Survey.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Review
- The influence of habitual consumption of chewing gums in the outcome of masticatory performance tests using two-coloured chewing gums.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most of the tools and diagnosis models of Masticatory Efficiency (ME) are not well documented or severely limited to simple image processing approaches. This study presents a novel expert system for ME assessment based on automatic recognition of mixture patterns of masticated two-coloured chewing gums using a combination of computational intelligence and image processing techniques. The hypotheses tested were that the proposed system could accurately relate specimens to the number of chewing cycles, and that it could identify differences between the mixture patterns of edentulous individuals prior and after complete denture treatment. This study enrolled 80 fully-dentate adults (41 females and 39 males, 25 ± 5 years of age) as the reference population; and 40 edentulous adults (21 females and 19 males, 72 ± 8.9 years of age) for the testing group. The system was calibrated using the features extracted from 400 samples covering 0, 10, 15, and 20 chewing cycles. The calibrated system was used to automatically analyse and classify a set of 160 specimens retrieved from individuals in the testing group in two appointments. The ME was then computed as the predicted number of chewing strokes that a healthy reference individual would need to achieve a similar degree of mixture measured against the real number of cycles applied to the specimen. The trained classifier obtained a Mathews Correlation Coefficient score of 0.97. ME measurements showed almost perfect agreement considering pre- and post-treatment appointments separately (κ ≥ 0.95). Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that a complete denture treatment for edentulous patients elicited a statistically significant increase in the ME measurements (Z = -2.31, p < 0.01). We conclude that the proposed expert system proved able and reliable to accurately identify patterns in mixture and provided useful ME measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.