ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Validation of a New Measuring Instrument for the Assessment of Bite Force.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07007572 (Evaluation Of Marginal Bone Height Changes And Biting Force In Screw Retained Implant Prostheses Using Reinforced Resin Vs Monolithic Zirconium Used In Unilateral Distal Extension Cases), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation Of Marginal Bone Height Changes And Biting Force In Screw Retained Implant Prostheses Using Reinforced Resin Vs Monolithic Zirconium Used In Unilateral Distal Extension Cases
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation Between the New Bite Force Meter and GC Dental Prescale II.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Oral health and oral health-related quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: associations with geriatric syndromes in a retrospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Experimental Study of Two-Bite Test Parameters for Effective Drug Release from Chewing Gum Using a Novel Bio-Engineered Testbed.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- An Evaluation of Reference Bite Force Values: Investigating the Relationship Between Dental Prosthetic Restoration and Bite Force in a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundthis study aims to validate two occlusal-force-measuring devices by comparing them to a universal testing machine and assessing their reliability across various dental and prosthetic groups. The research comprised two parts: part 1 assessed the measurement accuracy of the Occlusal Force Meter GM 10
resultsboth devices become more accurate and reliable compared to the ZWICK over time of usage. Additionally, higher deviation from the ZWICK can be observed for higher values of forces applied and vice versa for both devices. The PRO's intraoral alignment influences its mean values compared to the OFM in different dental and prosthetic groups.
conclusionboth devices had limitations and required quadratic function calibration, making them suitable only for progression measurements. The study concludes that both the OFM and PRO devices can measure occlusal forces with improved accuracy over time. Intraoral alignment should be considered. Their easy-to-use clinical application would allow a more widespread use of masticatory function diagnosis, which could indicate the need for treatment and improve treatment planning.
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.