The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Maximum Voluntary Bite Force in Adults with Normal Occlusion and Different Types of Malocclusions

Sridhar Premkumar, Haritha Pottipalli Sathyanarayana, WS Manjula

Citation Information : Premkumar S, Sathyanarayana HP, Manjula W. Assessment of Maximum Voluntary Bite Force in Adults with Normal Occlusion and Different Types of Malocclusions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (4):534-538.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1181

Published Online: 01-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).



Maximum voluntary bite force (MVBF) was assessed in adults with class I normal occlusion and compared with different malocclusions.

Materials and methods

One hundred and ten subjects in the age group of 17 to 25 years were classified into various groups. Thirty subjects with class I normal occlusion (Group A), 20 subjects with Angle's class I malocclusion (Group B), 20 subjects with skeletal class II malocclusion (Group C), 20 subjects with hypodivergent facial morphology (Group D) and 20 subjects with hyperdivergent facial morphology (Group E). MVBF was measured with a bite force meter at the first premolar and first molar region bilaterally. The values were recorded and statistically analyzed.


Mean MVBF value in each of the groups in the molar and first premolar region were found to be 601.83N ± 60.80, 392N ± 31.43 (group A), 592.60N ± 37.66, 378.90N ± 23.00 (group B), 586.60N ± 49.26, 377N ± 29.38 (group C), 771.50N ± 27.24, 500.60N ± 18.25 (group D), 283.85N ± 26.41, 283.85N ± 26.41 (group E). Student paired t-test was done to analyze the difference between two groups and considered as significant at a p-value of < 0.05. Significant difference was found between group A and D and group A and E with a p-value of <0.0001. No significant difference was observed between group A and group B (p = 0.5481and 0.1148) and group A and group C (p = 0.3551 and 0.0949). ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference among groups A, D and E. No significant difference was found among groups A, B and C. Males had a higher value than females.


Sagittal morphology does not significantly affect the MVBF value whereas there is a significant correlation with vertical morphology.

Clinical significance

Assessment of maximum voluntary bite force (MVBF) is a chairside procedure to evaluate masticatory muscle activity based on which treatment planning and mechanics can be known.

How to cite this article

Sathyanarayana HP, Premkumar S, Manjula WS. Assessment of Maximum Voluntary Bite Force in Adults with Normal Occlusion and Different Types of Malocclusions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(4):534-538.

PDF Share
  1. A study of bite force, part 1: Relationship to various physical characteristics. Angle Orthod 1995;65:367-72.
  2. Bite force in children with unilateral crossbite before and after orthodontic treatment. A prospective longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:310-13.
  3. Bite force and occlusion. Seminars in Orthodontics 2006;12:120-26.
  4. Relation between facial morphology and activity of masticatory muscles. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:131-47.
  5. Jaw muscle activity in relation to the direction and point of application of bite force. J Dent Res 1990;69:901-05.
  6. Maximum bite force, muscle efficiency and mechanical advantage in children with vertical growth patterns. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:265-72.
  7. Ultrasound image of human masseter muscle related to bite force, electromyography, facial morphology and occlusal factors. Scand J Den Res 1992;100:164-71.
  8. Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:659-70.
  9. Comparison of jaw muscle bite force cross-sections obtained by means of magnetic resonance imaging and high resolution CT scanning. J Dent Res 1989;68:1765-70.
  10. Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol 1996;41:323-32.
  11. A study of bite force, part 2: Relationship to various cephalometric measurements. The Angle Orthod 1995;65:373-77.
  12. The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance, and facial morphology during growth. A cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:323-31.
  13. An electronic strain gauge for measuring oral forces. J Dent Res 1948;27:705-12.
  14. A novel miniature bite force recorder and its clinical application. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40:209-14.
  15. Unilateral isometric bite force in 8 to 68-year old women and men related to occlusal factors. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98(2):149-58.
  16. Temporomandibular disorders in relation to craniofacial dimensions, head posture and bite force in children selected for orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:179-92.
  17. EMG, bite force, and elongation of the masseter muscle under isometric voluntary contractions and variations of vertical dimension. J Prosthe Dent 1979;42:674-82.
  18. Effect of jaw opening on the direction and magnitude of human incisal bite forces. J Dent Res 1997;76:561-67.
  19. The effects of orthodontic treatment on isometric bite forces and mandibular motion in patients before orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:673-78.
  20. A thin bite force transducer with three dimensional capabilities reveals a consistent change in bite force direction during human jaw muscle endurance tests. Arch Oral Biol 1993;38:139-44.
  21. Biomechanics of differences in lower facial height. Am J Orthod 1980;77:410-20.
  22. Molar bite force in relation to occlusion, craniofacial dimensions, and head posture in preorthodontic children. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:58-63.
  23. Patterns of electromyographic activity in subjects with different skeletal facial types. Angle Orthod 1991;61:277-84.
  24. Masticatory muscle force and facial morphology in man. Archives Oral Biol 1978;23:203-06.
  25. Fiber sizes of human masseter muscles in relation to bite force. J Neuro Sci 1973;19:297-305.
  26. A comparison of jaw muscle cross-sections of longface and normal adults. J Dent Res 1992;71:1279-85.
  27. Occlusal forces in normal and long-face adults. J Dent Res 1983;62:566-70.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.