SynthesisInternational dental journal2026
Assessment of Masticatory Performance: A Systematic Review of Current Assessment Methods and Measurement Properties.
Synthesis in International dental journal, 2026. 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.
- Effects of Kangfuxin on periodontal and masticatory outcome in periodontitis patients during implant supported rehabilitation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of current masticatory performance (MP) assessment methods in adult populations. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost databases for studies published from January 2000 to September 2025. This review included adult populations aged ≥18 years and was not restricted to a specific age subgroup. Eligible studies were those that assessed MP by mixing ability, comminution tests, or other objective approaches. The measurement properties and corresponding levels of evidence for each included study were systematically evaluated. Data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were conducted in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines. A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria. MP assessment methods can be categorized into mixing ability, comminution, and other tests. The mixing ability tests, particularly those using colour-changeable or two-colour chewing gums, demonstrated the most consistent evidence, with sufficient reliability and strong validity. Comminution tests, including sieving, optical scanning, and gummy jelly-based tests, revealed moderate reliability and validity. Emerging digital and image-based analyses have shown promising potential but remain insufficiently validated. Current MP assessment methods provide partial but insufficient evidence across measurement properties, and no standardized, clinically validated test exists. Future research should prioritize methodological standardization and incorporate digital and image-based technologies with rigorous validation to establish reliable and universally applicable MP assessment tools.
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.