Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32317982›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2020

Masticatory Adaptation to Occlusal Changes.

Pierre Bourdiol, Martine Hennequin, Marie-Agnes Peyron, Alain Woda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Relationship between Oral Health Status and Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Older People: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Initial exploration of the relationship between homeostatic occlusion and long-term dental implant stability].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pierre BourdiolCROC EA 4847, Faculty of Dentistry, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Martine HennequinCROC EA 4847, Faculty of Dentistry, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Marie-Agnes PeyronHuman Nutrition Unit, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, France.
Alain WodaCROC EA 4847, Faculty of Dentistry, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review deals with the frequent wide variability of masticatory capacity/incapacity. Neither researchers nor clinicians have taken sufficient account of this variability despite its implications for nutrition. Mastication in normal healthy oral conditions is first described, followed by a short presentation of the mechanisms of masticatory adaptation in the nervous system. Capacity, incapacity, and successful compensatory adaptation of mastication are then defined, along with the different methods used for their evaluation. Examples of adaptation needs are given, such as those concomitant with dental wear or occlusal changes. Finally, given its vital importance for deeply impaired mastication/deglutition function, the impact of masticatory adaptation processes on nutrition is examined.

Indexed as

dental weardisabilitymasticatory adaptationmasticatory testocclusiontooth loss

Identifiers

PMID32317982
PMCPMC7147355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.