ArticleCureus2024
Texture Analysis of Food Samples Used for the Evaluation of Masticatory Function.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biochemical Composition, Nutritional Profile, Bioactive Compound Content, Antioxidant Activity, and Technological Potential of Mycelium fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Food questionnaire surveys are often used to evaluate masticatory function. In daily clinical practice in Japan, a survey is performed using a list of food groups suitable for the Japanese diet. The foods on the list were categorized into five food groups based on their mastication index. The patient's masticatory function is determined by the food groups that can be eaten. The masticatory index, which indicates chewability, was defined based on the percentage of 110 denture wearers who responded that they could eat food normally. A survey with this list is useful because of its simplicity; however, there is a lack of objective data on the physical properties of food samples. Consequently, to make the results of the food questionnaire survey more objective indicators, we performed a texture analysis of the food samples on the list. Methods We performed a texture analysis of 93 samples from 77 food items on the list. Compression tests were performed using a texture analyzer, and hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, viscosity, and gumminess were calculated by a texture profile analysis. Results Even with the same ingredients, the results differed depending on the presence or absence of food skin, the direction of pressing (vertical or horizontal), cooking methods, and temperature differences. However, the masticatory index was negatively correlated with hardness (-0.4157, p<0.001) and gumminess which is determined as the product of hardness×cohesiveness (-0.4980, p<0.001). Conclusion This study suggests that the masticatory index indicating chewability may be related to the hardness and cohesiveness of food samples. Even for foods with the same hardness, the degree of difficulty in forming a food mass is expected to vary depending on differences in cohesiveness. Moreover, the presence or absence of food skin, the direction of food fibers, cooking methods, and temperature differences change the physical properties of the food. Therefore, the composition and structure of the foods or eating habits of patients should be taken into consideration when conducting a food questionnaire survey.
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.