Next Article in Journal
Mediterranean Diet Favors Vitamin K Intake: A Descriptive Study in a Mediterranean Population
Previous Article in Journal
Nutrition Knowledge, Attitudes, and Lifestyle Practices That May Lead to Breast Cancer Risk Reduction among Female University Students in Lebanon
Previous Article in Special Issue
Psychometric Analysis of the Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants-Short Form to Evaluate Dietary Quality in a Pre-Surgical Bariatric Population
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 8
10.3390/nu16081096
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Self-Perception of Chewing, Chewing Behavior, and the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Candidates for Bariatric Surgery

by
Flávia Luciana Pinheiro de Souza Pinto Martins
1,
Millena Borges Inete
1,
Yasmym Dannielle do Espírito Santo Souza
1,
Rafaela Lorena Viana Costa
1,
Rafaelle Dias Gabbay
1,
Tainá Martins Moraes
1,
Vanessa Vieira Lourenço Costa
2,
Carla Cristina Paiva Paracampo
1,
Luiz Carlos de Albuquerque
1 and
Daniela Lopes Gomes
1,*
1
Graduate Program in Neuroscience and Behavior, Behavior Theory and Research Center, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-110, Brazil
2
Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-110, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(8), 1096; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16081096
Submission received: 23 January 2024 / Revised: 12 February 2024 / Accepted: 19 February 2024 / Published: 9 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical and Nutritional Management of Bariatric Surgery Patients)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Given the changes in the digestive tract post-bariatric surgery, adapting to a new pattern of eating behavior becomes crucial, with special attention to the specifics of chewing mechanics. This study aimed to investigate the association between self-perception of chewing, chewing behavior, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in preoperative patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Sixty adult candidates for bariatric surgery at a public hospital in Belém (Brazil) were analyzed. Participants predominantly exhibited unilateral chewing patterns (91.6%), a fast chewing rhythm (73.3%), a large food bolus (80%), liquid intake during meals (36.7%), and 41.7% reported that chewing could cause some issue. Significant associations were found between the perception of causing problems and chewing scarcity (p = 0.006), diarrhea (p = 0.004), absence of slow chewing (p = 0.048), and frequent cutting of food with front teeth (p = 0.034). These findings reveal a relationship between the perception of chewing problems and chewing scarcity, presence of diarrhea, and fast chewing.

1. Introduction

Obesity is a chronic global disease with multifactorial etiology, showing an increasing incidence and becoming one of the greatest public health challenges worldwide over the last three decades [1]. In Brazil, statistics indicate that 57.2% of the population is overweight [2].
According to the WHO [3], obesity is characterized by the accumulation of body fat, causing health impairments, and is classified based on the Body Mass Index (BMI) above 30 kg/m2 with associated mortality risk. Its treatment involves approaches such as nutritional therapy, use of weight-loss medications, and physical exercise. However, many patients do not respond satisfactorily to conventional clinical treatment, necessitating surgical intervention, known as bariatric surgery [4]. Regardless of the type of treatment indicated, an interdisciplinary follow-up during the process is essential [5].
Bariatric surgery comprises techniques aiming to induce body mass reduction, enhance quality of life, and improve obesity-related comorbidities [6]. In Brazil, this treatment is recommended for individuals with a BMI above 40 kg/m2, irrespective of comorbidities, or for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 associated with comorbidities [7].
Surgical treatment does not negate the need to adopt a healthy lifestyle, which should be maintained long-term post-surgery, as weight loss depends on changes in behavior and eating habits [8,9].
Due to changes in the digestive tract after bariatric surgery, adapting to a new eating behavior pattern becomes crucial, paying attention to the specifics of chewing mechanics [10]. Chewing corresponds to the initial phase of the digestive process, constituting a functional system comprising anatomical and physiological structures that allow for optimal chewing movements [11].
Chewing involves a variable sequence of chewing cycles, initiated by sensory receptors activated by food [12]. Through this sensory input, the chewing-generating centers—specifically, the trigeminal sensory–motor complex and the trigeminal motor nucleus—controlling the chewing muscles, adjust parameters such as the number of cycles, muscle force, and jaw movements based on the transformation of food consistency [13].
The primary function of chewing is to break down food into smaller particles, mixing them with saliva. Saliva moistens the ingested food, while salivary enzymes bind to it, forming a cohesive, slippery bolus safe for swallowing and digestion [14].
For chewing to be considered correct or appropriate, specific characteristics during the chewing process are necessary. Initially, incision should occur using the incisors to cut the food. Subsequently, the food should be moved to the premolar teeth for grinding. Finally, the food should reach the molars to be pulverized, assisted by saliva, forming the food bolus [15]. Additionally, chewing should happen bilaterally and alternately, involving vertical and rotational jaw movements, with a slow rhythm, and with closed lips to assist the tongue during grinding [16].
Well-chewed food is considered to aid in the digestion process since digestive enzymes act on the surface of food particles. When a person chews thoroughly, food is broken down into smaller particles, increasing the surface area exposed to digestive enzymes [17,18].
On the other hand, inadequate chewing can lead to food reaching the stomach disorganized and with large volumes of air, causing undesirable gastrointestinal symptoms such as flatulence, heartburn, reflux, nausea, and vomiting [19,20,21].
There are suggestions indicating that when a person chews, sensory information from the orofacial region is transmitted to the trigeminal sensory–motor complex and the trigeminal motor nucleus by trigeminal afferent neurons, chemically adjusting motor actions to absorb nutrients until satiety is achieved [22]. Proper chewing patterns are necessary for individuals with obesity due to its impact on digestion and possibly on hunger and satiety perception, potentially associated with gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain [23,24].
Studies have suggested a relationship between chewing and weight gain [25,26], characterized by rapid chewing in individuals with severe obesity and/or those who have undergone bariatric surgery [27,28,29]. Some studies have shown that chewing quickly and less frequently is associated with obesity [30,31]. Others have indicated that better chewing behavior and reduced bite size increase satiety and anticipate meal termination [32,33,34], slowing down chewing speed and reducing portion size, thereby contributing to weight loss [35,36,37].
In this context, our hypothesis is that individuals with severe obesity exhibit inadequate chewing behavior, which may not be self-perceived and is associated with the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the association between chewing behavior, self-perception of chewing, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in candidates for bariatric surgery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The research had a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical design. Sixty adults between 20 and 60 years old, candidates for bariatric surgery, residing in the metropolitan area of Belém (Brazil) and in rural areas of the state, were selected by convenience. They were being followed-up at the Endocrinology outpatient clinic at Jean Bitar Hospital and agreed to participate in the research, signing the Informed Consent Form (ICF). Individuals under 18 or over 60 years old, patients with facial or occlusal deformities, hearing impairments, cognitive impairment, prior neurological conditions (such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, among others), who used any medication that could cause gastrointestinal symptoms, and patients who had received speech therapy treatment or guidance on chewing were excluded from the study.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Data Collection Form

Developed by researchers, this form was used for the sociodemographic and clinical characterization of participants. It included name, gender, age, education level, occupation, place of residence, marital status, family income, Body Mass Index (BMI), and clinical status (associated chronic diseases and problems). Participants had to answer yes or no to the presence of symptoms after eating such as vomiting, dyspepsia, reflux, flatulence, heartburn, gastralgia, diarrhea, and constipation. Additionally, it inquired whether participants had received guidance on how to avoid these symptoms, and if so, the nature of this guidance.

2.2.2. Chewing Evaluation Protocol

This instrument encompassed topics related to functional chewing assessment conducted by a speech therapist, such as incision or cutting of food by the front teeth, lateral teeth, or absence of incision; unilateral chewing pattern—right, left, or bilateral; systematic or absent lip closure; slow (more than 40 s) or fast (less than 30 s) chewing rhythm; an average of 15 to 20 masticatory cycles would be considered appropriate for the quantity of the food chosen; rotational or vertical jaw movements; food bolus size—small (portion of food) or large (whole food); and presence or absence of excessive chewing, chewing scarcity, and pain while chewing, need for liquids during chewing, and noise in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Participants were asked to eat a piece of French bread, approximately one-sixth of the bread, while a speech therapist observed their chewing. The document was adapted from validated protocols by Gonçalves and Chehter [38] and the orofacial myofunctional evaluation protocol MBGR, named after its authors’ surnames—Marchesan, Berrentin-Felix, Genaro, and Rehder [39].

2.2.3. Self-Perception Chewing Form

A questionnaire designed by a speech therapist researcher consisting of 13 specific questions regarding chewing behavior. For instance, whether the participant puts small pieces of food in their mouth, chews slowly, chews on both sides, cuts food with front teeth, closes their mouth while chewing, experiences pain while chewing, tends to drink liquids to swallow food, experiences heartburn after eating, experiences dyspepsia and gastric fullness after eating, has episodes of vomiting, experiences choking episodes during meals, takes a long time to finish a meal, whether the participant believes their chewing is causing them any problems, and if they had any difficulty eating meat. Participants read and completed each question about their chewing behaviors together with the researcher, selecting one of four response options (always, frequently, sometimes, never). The symptom grades were summed up in the data analysis.

2.3. Procedure

The 60 pre-bariatric surgery participants were individually assessed by the responsible researcher. Initially, they completed the data collection form, providing sociodemographic, clinical, and information regarding their knowledge about chewing behavior, aiming to characterize the sample. The researcher previously assessed the dentition of all participants to ensure that the absence of teeth or the use of dental prostheses did not confuse the interpretation of the results. Afterward, participants underwent an evaluation of chewing behavior using the chewing assessment protocol. Subsequently, they completed the self-perception chewing questionnaire.
The assessment using the chewing protocol was solely conducted by the speech therapist researcher in a private setting, with participants seated during the evaluation. The researcher handed each participant a piece of French bread, approximately ten grams of the loaf and provided a glass of water in case the participant needed liquids during the test. The researcher said something like, “Please, you may start eating”. Three (3) offers of food (French bread) were made to obtain an average of chewing cycles and observe rhythm, scarcity, or excess of chewing. French bread was chosen as it allows for easy visualization of chewing and does not cause atypical reactions, ensuring good comparability, acceptance, and visibility of chewing [38].
The participant’s chewing was recorded based on observed behavior, following the items in the chewing assessment protocol. Subsequently, the researcher provided the self-perception chewing questionnaire with specific questions about chewing behavior. These questions were read together with the researcher and answered by the participant.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, version 24.0. Results were expressed in absolute frequency and proportion. The Chi-square test of independence with adjusted residual analysis was applied, considering a statistical significance level of p > 0.05 for the comparison of all study variables.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The execution of this study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, revised in 2013, and approved by the research ethics committee involving human subjects at the Tropical Medicine Center at the Federal University of Pará, under protocol 4.052.573-CEP/NMT. The research complies with the ethical–legal precepts (autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice) recommended in Resolution No. 466/2012 regarding research involving human subjects by the Brazilian National Health Council, and its execution was approved by the teaching and research sector of the Jean Bitar Regional Hospital.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Profile

In this study, 60 pre-bariatric surgery patients were evaluated, aged between 20 and 60 years old, with a median age of 39.6 (±10.4) years. The majority were female (n = 58; 96.7%), married (n = 38; 63.3%), had completed high school education (n = 26; 43.3%), had a family income of one to three minimum wages (n = 34; 56.7%), resided in the metropolitan area of Belém (n = 41; 68.3%), and their average BMI was 46.2 ± 9 kg/m2. Of the participants, 15% had previously received guidance on gastrointestinal symptom prevention strategies at some point in their lives (Table 1).

3.2. Self-Perception of Chewing

In relation to participants’ responses to the self-perception chewing questionnaire, 43.3% reported never putting small pieces of food in their mouths, 56.7% stated never chewing slowly, and 50% mentioned never chewing on both sides. Furthermore, 53.3% reported always making incisions in food with their front teeth, 70% always closed their mouths during chewing, and 58.3% never felt pain during chewing. Concerning meal duration, 71.7% reported never taking a long time to finish meals. Regarding the perception that chewing caused them any issues, 58.3% responded never, while 35% said it sometimes caused problems, and approximately 83% drank liquids during meals (Table 2).

3.3. Chewing Behavior

During the chewing assessment, the main behaviors exhibited by the participants included always making incisions in the food bolus with their front teeth (53.3%). This aligns with what was reported in the self-perception chewing questionnaire, where 53.3% reported always cutting food with their front teeth.
Another notable characteristic was the left-sided unilateral chewing pattern (53.3%), followed by the right-sided unilateral pattern (38.3%), consistent with the participants’ reports in the self-perception chewing questionnaire, where 50% claimed to never chew on both sides.
Additionally, systematic lip closure was observed in 83.3% of participants. In the questionnaire, 70% of participants reported always closing their mouths during chewing (Table 2 and Table 3).
The results obtained in the assessment of chewing rhythm showed that 73.3% had a fast rhythm, similar to the self-perception findings where 71.3% reported not taking much time for meals. As for the observed mandibular movements, rotational movements were observed in 58.3% of participants (Table 2 and Table 3).
Regarding the size of the food bolus placed in the mouth during the assessment, it was noted that 80% put large pieces of food in their mouths (Table 3). This differs from the reported information by the participants, as only 43.3% mentioned always putting large pieces of food in their mouths (Table 2).
Regarding liquid intake during meals, 36.7% drank liquids during the meal in the assessment. Additionally, noise during chewing was present in 31.7%, snoring in 60%, and sleep apnea in 26.7% of the evaluated participants (Table 3).
When comparing self-perception of chewing with the assessed chewing behavior, only 41.7% of participants reported that chewing could cause any problems. However, 73.3% presented incorrect chewing patterns during the assessment, 80% put large pieces of food in their mouths, 83.3% had a unilateral chewing pattern, and 43.3% performed few chews. Only the ability to maintain lip closure during meals was similar in self-perception and assessment.

3.4. Gastrointestinal Symptoms

Regarding the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, 58.3% of participants reported the presence of flatulence, 40% reported gastroesophageal reflux, 30% reported feeling gastric fullness frequently, 28.3% reported feeling postprandial heartburn frequently, 21.7% reported diarrhea, and 18.3% reported gastralgia (Table 4).

3.5. Relationship between Self-Perception of Chewing, Chewing Characteristics, and the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms

Regarding the relationship between self-perception of chewing, the observed chewing characteristics by the speech therapist during evaluations, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, it was found that perceiving chewing as problematic was associated with a low frequency of chewing movements (p = 0.006). Having diarrhea was associated with perceiving chewing as problematic (p = 0.004). Never chewing slowly was associated with the perception that chewing causes problems, while chewing slowly was associated with the perception that chewing does not cause problems (p = 0.048). Cutting food with the front teeth always was associated with the perception that chewing does not cause problems, whereas frequently cutting food with the front teeth was associated with the perception that chewing causes problems (p = 0.034). Moreover, experiencing frequent choking during meals was associated with the perception that chewing causes problems (p = 0.035) (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the association between chewing behavior, self-perception of chewing, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in candidates for bariatric surgery.
A higher frequency of consuming large food particles was observed both in the participants’ reports and in the conducted evaluations. These findings align with those from a study by Isabel et al. [40], which identified that individuals with obesity ingested larger food particles both during chewing and swallowing tests, indicating reduced chewing performance and a greater tendency to swallow larger particles.
The ingestion of large food particles may lead to inefficient digestion when compared to thorough chewing, potentially causing prolonged intestinal transit, and resulting in gastrointestinal discomforts such as irritation, abdominal distension, pain, nausea, and vomiting [41]. In more severe cases, it may lead to intestinal obstruction [42]. Additionally, it can have a negative impact on body weight and eating behavior [43].
Most participants reported chewing quickly, which aligns with the proportion of rapid chewing identified in the assessment. Another study involving participants with obesity also found that they chewed less and consumed food more rapidly compared to non-overweight participants [44], with a prevalence of rapid chewing among participants with obesity similar to the proportion found in this study.
These results differ from those found by White et al. [45], who did not identify significant differences in chewing speed between individuals with and without excess weight, suggesting that individuals with normal weight may also exhibit inappropriate chewing behavior and that weight alone is not the sole determinant of this practice. Therefore, it becomes necessary to study other factors, such as psychological issues and lifestyle, which may be associated with inadequate chewing patterns.
Individual sensitivity, gastrointestinal tract motility, intestinal microbiota, immune response, and the state and functioning of the intestinal barrier can be influenced by food intake and habits such as smoking and alcohol consumption. These factors are often associated with the appearance of gastrointestinal symptoms. The most investigated food groups in this context are lipids, fermentable carbohydrates, caffeine, milk and derivatives, dietary fibers, probiotics, and gluten [17].
The rapid chewing behavior in obese patients and candidates for bariatric surgery is well documented in the literature [46,47,48], but studies comparing the assessment of this behavior with self-perception of chewing in these individuals have not been identified, highlighting the contribution of this research to the literature.
Encouraging slow chewing may contribute to reducing self-reported hunger sensations, reducing the amount of food consumed, and preventing excessive flatulence [49]. This practice optimizes the digestion process, allowing the stomach to adequately break down food particles for the subsequent segments, increasing satiety and insulin sensitivity, which positively impacts glucose absorption [50,51]. It also proves beneficial for pre- and post-surgical weight loss and for establishing healthy eating behavior [23,52].
The behavior of always consuming liquids during meals was reported by 25% of the participants, similar to the findings of Moraes et al. [53], who found that about 29.63% of individuals with obesity also exhibited this behavior. However, evidence suggests that this practice should be discouraged as it is generally associated with symptoms of poor digestion, vomiting, and dumping syndrome [54,55,56].
It was found that most participants (91.6%) exhibited a unilateral chewing pattern, contrasting with self-reported perceptions where only 50% reported having this pattern. In a study involving individuals with obesity, 66% reported adopting a unilateral chewing pattern [53]. Pedroni-Pereira et al. also found a higher prevalence of unilateral chewing in overweight women, which aligns with the results of our study. The overweight group also showed more alterations in myofunctional and orofacial aspects when compared to eutrophic participants [57].
The unilateral chewing pattern results in greater development of the jaw on the side opposite to chewing and greater development of the maxilla on the side where chewing occurs [58]. The ideal and physiologically adequate chewing pattern is bilateral alternation, where chewing cycles alternate between the right and left sides [59]. This pattern allows for the proper distribution of chewing force, alternating work and rest, promoting muscle and functional synchrony and balance, stimulating the development and/or maintenance of dental arches, and occlusal stability [12].
Furthermore, the incision of food should occur using the incisors or front teeth, as they play the role of cutting food, functioning as levers to break it down [12,60,61]. This practice was identified in both the reports and evaluations of our participants.
A high frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms was observed among the participants in this study, with a higher frequency of gastroesophageal reflux, flatulence, postprandial heartburn, and sensation of gastric fullness. This can be partially explained by the nutritional profile of this population, as obesity is considered a risk factor for gastrointestinal disorders due to associated anatomical and physiological alterations [62,63,64,65,66]. Based solely on the collected data, it is not possible to clearly identify what may have generated such behaviors. However, some suggestions found in the literature can be provided for the conduct of future research.
The habit of eating quickly may be associated with the sensation of gastric fullness and excessive flatulence [67,68,69]. The onset of these symptoms may also be linked to dietary patterns, with high consumption of ultra-processed foods and a scarcity of dietary fiber [70,71].
An association was also observed between reported perception of chewing problems and digestive symptoms such as diarrhea and choking. Choking incidents may be related to haste during eating [72], inadequate chewing, and the ingestion of large food particles, which hinders swallowing [73,74].
A possible explanation for the association between chewing problems and the occurrence of diarrhea is the rapid arrival of undigested food in the small intestine, the release of gastrointestinal hormones, and the water imbalance in the intestinal compartment caused by hyperosmolar molecules [54,55,56].
This analysis suggests the necessity of providing preoperative guidance emphasizing changes in eating behavior, such as instructions related to chewing and swallowing [75]. These instructions play an important role in preventing undesirable gastrointestinal symptoms and contribute to the success of the surgery [76].
While some studies have suggested that changes in chewing capacity may indirectly influence the onset of gastrointestinal disorders, there is a scarcity of literature on the relationship between chewing assessment and gastrointestinal symptoms [76,77,78,79].
It is assumed that the perception that chewing can cause problems influences individuals’ food choices, leading them to prefer foods that are easier to chew, even if they are not necessarily the healthiest. This preference can negatively impact gastrointestinal health, contributing to the manifestation of gastrointestinal symptoms.
Regarding the discrepancy between self-perception of chewing and evaluated chewing behavior, a possible hypothesis would be the difficulty in self-assessing chewing behavior. Normally, in certain verbal settings (such as restaurants and other circumstances where eating can be evaluated), people are exposed to justifications for chewing with their mouths closed. In more specific verbal environments (such as speech therapy, nutrition, theater, etiquette courses, among others), a person may be exposed to justifications for them to perceive their own chewing and to be aware of whether it is correct. However, in general, people are not encouraged to closely evaluate their chewing behavior in their daily lives unless confronted with specific questions or a professional assessment.
Therefore, in everyday life, activities like chewing, swallowing, and other oral functions are often automatic and, therefore, rarely subjected to conscious evaluation. Individuals, in general, do not usually reflect on the details of the chewing process unless prompted to do so, such as in a clinical or research context, where observation and reporting of these activities become necessary. Additionally, lack of education about the importance of proper chewing may contribute to a distorted self-perception. This highlights the importance of greater awareness regarding the significance of chewing for overall health.
In this regard, encouraging proper chewing behavior in candidates for bariatric surgery could be facilitated through promises related to weight loss, health, and other well-being components, according to the Theory of Justifications and Immediate Consequences Control (TJC Theory). This theory allows us to understand how environmental variables, including treatment rules, justifications, and immediate consequences, influence and maintain behavior [80,81,82].
According to the TJC Theory, promises of weight loss, body aesthetics, health, well-being, and happiness function as justifications for the specified behavior outlined by treatment rules to occur and be maintained [80,81,82]. In this context, treatment rules may include guidance on how to chew correctly, with the justification that it is essential for proper digestion and to avoid complications.
Future research could explore how these promises can be more effectively integrated into preoperative strategies to optimize the outcomes of bariatric surgery. This study contributes to the literature on chewing behavior by comparatively analyzing self-perception and chewing mechanics in candidates for bariatric surgery, a gap not identified in the existing literature on the subject.
Despite the relevance of these questions, the present study has some limitations, such as its cross-sectional design, which only allows testing associations and describing certain characteristics based on the specific sample. Moreover, due to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic during the research, recruiting participants was challenging, thereby highlighting the need for future studies with a larger and more representative sample.
Another limitation of the study was the challenge in accurately assessing the chewing pattern, particularly during systematic lip closure. Therefore, it is necessary and relevant to conduct studies that employ imaging examinations to accurately evaluate chewing movements.
It was also not possible to recruit a control group due to pandemic restrictions at the time of data collection; however, the comparison of chewing mechanics between people with and without obesity is already documented in the literature. Despite the difficulties, the obtained results are valuable and contribute to clarifying the relationship between chewing, self-perception of chewing, and gastrointestinal symptoms, providing an initial foundation for the development of future studies, especially those of longitudinal and experimental nature.

5. Conclusions

Participants exhibited a predominantly unilateral chewing pattern, a rapid chewing pace, rotary mandibular movements, an insertion of a bulky food bolus into the mouth, and the need for liquid intake during meals. Additionally, an association was found between the perception of chewing problems and a scarcity of chewing, occurrences of diarrhea, rapid chewing, and choking incidents.
Considering these findings, it underscores the importance of patients receiving guidance during pre-surgical consultations regarding necessary changes in eating behavior, emphasizing the justifications for following instructions related to chewing and swallowing. Attention to these aspects is crucial to avoid undesirable gastrointestinal symptoms, aiding in weight loss, and contributing to the success of treatment in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L.P.d.S.P.M., D.L.G. and V.V.L.C.; data curation, F.L.P.d.S.P.M. and D.L.G.; formal analysis, F.L.P.d.S.P.M. and D.L.G.; funding acquisition, D.L.G. and C.C.P.P.; investigation, F.L.P.d.S.P.M.; methodology, F.L.P.d.S.P.M., D.L.G. and V.V.L.C.; project administration, D.L.G.; resources, F.L.P.d.S.P.M.; supervision, D.L.G. and V.V.L.C.; validation, F.L.P.d.S.P.M., D.L.G. and V.V.L.C.; visualization, F.L.P.d.S.P.M., D.L.G. and V.V.L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L.P.d.S.P.M., D.L.G., V.V.L.C., M.B.I., Y.D.d.E.S.S., R.L.V.C., R.D.G. and T.M.M.; writing—review and editing, D.L.G., V.V.L.C., L.C.d.A. and C.C.P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received financial support from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and the Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas (Fapespa).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, revised in 2013. It was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Tropical Medicine Center at the Federal University of Pará (protocol code: 4052573-CEP/NMT; approval date: 27 May 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals involved in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request due to restrictions aimed at preserving the privacy of the participants. The data presented in this study are available upon request to the project’s research coordinator. The data are not publicly available due to ethical considerations regarding the preservation of participants’ identities.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of the Graduate Program in Neuroscience and Behavior at the Behavior Theory and Research Center of the Federal University of Pará, the Jean Bitar Regional Hospital, the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and the Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas (Fapespa).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to publish the findings.

References

  1. WHO European Regional Obesity Report 2022; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/353747/9789289057738-eng.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  2. Vigitel Vigilância de Fatores de Risco e Proteção para Doenças Crônicas por Inquérito Telefônico—Brasil 2021; Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2022. Available online: https://observatoriodeoncologia.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/vigitel-brasil-2021.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  3. WHO Consultation on Obesity; World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic: Report of a WHO Consultation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42330 (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  4. ABESO Diretrizes Brasileiras de Obesidade 2016. Associação Brasileira para o Estudo da Obesidade e da Síndrome Metabólica; Associação Brasileira para o Estudo da Obesidade e da Síndrome Metabólica: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; Available online: https://abeso.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Diretrizes-Download-Diretrizes-Brasileiras-de-Obesidade-2016.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  5. ABESO Posicionamento Sobre o Tratamento Nutricional do Sobrepeso e da Obesidade: Departamento de Nutrição da Associação Brasileira para o Estudo da Obesidade e da Síndrome Metabólica; Associação Brasileira para o Estudo da Obesidade e da Síndrome Metabólica: São Paulo, Brazil, 2022. Available online: https://abeso.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/posicionamento_2022-alterado-nov-22-1.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  6. Eisenberg, D.; Shikora, S.A.; Aarts, E.; Aminian, A.; Angrisani, L.; Cohen, R.V.; De Luca, M.; Faria, S.L.; Goodpaster, K.P.S.; Haddad, A.; et al. 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2022, 18, 1345–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. CFM Conselho Federal de Medicina. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Medicina. 2016. Resolução CFM Nº 2.131/2015. Available online: https://sistemas.cfm.org.br/normas/visualizar/resolucoes/BR/2015/2131 (accessed on 6 October 2023).
  8. Karfopoulou, E.; Brikou, D.; Mamalaki, E.; Bersimis, F.; Anastasiou, C.A.; Hill, J.O.; Yannakoulia, M. Dietary patterns in weight loss maintenance: Results from the MedWeight study. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 991–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Teixeira, P.J.; Carraça, E.V.; Marques, M.M.; Rutter, H.; Oppert, J.M.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Lakerveld, J.; Brug, J. Successful behavior change in obesity interventions in adults: A systematic review of self-regulation mediators. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Silva, A.S.G.; Tanigute, C.C.; Tessitore, A. A necessidade da avaliação fonoaudiológica no protocolo de pacientes candidatos à cirurgia bariátrica. Rev. CEFAC 2014, 16, 1655–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ramfjord, S.; Ash, M.M. Oclusão, 3rd ed; Interamericana: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1984; p. 422. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuentes, R.; Farfán, C.; Arias, A. Characteristics of Chewing: An Update of the Literature. Int. J. Odontostomat. 2021, 15, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iguchi, H.; Magara, J.; Nakamura, Y.; Tsujimura, T.; Ito, K.; Inoue, M. Changes in jaw muscle activity and the physical properties of foods with different textures during chewing behaviors. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hamosh, M.; Burns, W.A. Lipolytic activity of human lingual glands (Ebner). Lab. Investig. 1977, 37, 603–608. [Google Scholar]
  15. Douglas, C.R. Patofisiologia Oral; Pancast: São Paulo, Brazil, 1998; p. 657. [Google Scholar]
  16. Douglas, C.R. Tratado de Fisiologia Aplicada à Fonoaudiologia; Robe: São Paulo, Brazil, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. Angelis, R.C. Digestão e Absorção de Nutrientes; Sarvier: São Paulo, Brazil, 1998; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, A.; Almotairy, N.; Merzo, J.J.; Wendin, K.; Rothenberg, E.; Grigoriadis, A.; Sandborgh-Englund, G.; Trulsson, M. Chewing and its influence on swallowing, gastrointestinal and nutrition-related factors: A systematic review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 14, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Keller, J.; Layer, P. The Pathophysiology of Malabsorption. Viszeralmedizin 2014, 30, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pennings, B.; Groen, B.B.; van Dijk, J.W.; de Lange, A.; Kiskini, A.; Kuklinski, M.; Senden, J.M.; van Loon, L.J. Minced beef is more rapidly digested and absorbed than beef steak, resulting in greater postprandial protein retention in older men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 98, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Adibi, P.; Keshteli, A.H.; Saneei, M.; Saneei, P.; Savabi, O.; Esmaillzadeh, A. Relationship between Tooth Loss, Functional Dyspepsia and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disorder among Isfahani Adults. Arch. Iran. Med. 2016, 19, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Chaudhry, S.R.; Liman, M.N.P.; Peterson, D.C. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Stomach; StatPearls: Treasure Island, Finland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhu, Y.; Hollis, J.H. Relationship between chewing behavior and body weight status in fully dentate healthy adults. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 66, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Slyper, A. Oral Processing, Satiation and Obesity: Overview and Hypotheses. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2021, 14, 3399–3415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rocha, A.C.A.; Conceição, N.O.; Toni, L.D.M. Chewing and swallowing in obese individuals referred to bariatric surgery/gastroplasty—A pilot study. Rev. CEFAC 2019, 21, e8519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Argyrakopoulou, G.; Simati, S.; Dimitriadis, G.; Kokkinos, A. How Important Is Eating Rate in the Physiological Response to Food Intake, Control of Body Weight, and Glycemia? Nutrients 2020, 12, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Canterini, C.C.; Gaubil-Kaladjian, I.; Vatin, S.; Viard, A.; Wolak-Thierry, A.; Bertin, E. Rapid Eating is Linked to Emotional Eating in Obese Women Relieving from Bariatric Surgery. Obes. Surg. 2018, 28, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ohkuma, T.; Hirakawa, Y.; Nakamura, U.; Kiyohara, Y.; Kitazono, T.; Ninomiya, T. Association between eating rate and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Obes. 2015, 39, 1589–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kolay, E.; Bykowska-Derda, A.; Abdulsamad, S.; Kaluzna, M.; Samarzewska, K.; Ruchala, M.; Czlapka-Matyasik, M. Self-Reported Eating Speed Is Associated with Indicators of Obesity in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koidis, F.; Brunger, L.; Gibbs, M.; Hampton, S. The effect of eating rate on satiety in healthy and overweight people—A pilot study. e-SPEN J. 2014, 9, e54–e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Glibowski, P.; Ćwiklińska, M.; Białasz, A.; Koch, W.; Marzec, Z. Fast consumption increases the risk of overweight and obesity. Rocz. Panstw. Zakl. Hig. 2020, 71, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  32. Angelopoulos, T.; Kokkinos, A.; Liaskos, C.; Tentolouris, N.; Alexiadou, K.; Miras, A.D.; Mourouzis, I.; Perrea, D.; Pantos, C.; Katsilambros, N.; et al. The effect of slow spaced eating on hunger and satiety in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 2014, 2, e000013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. James, L.J.; Maher, T.; Biddle, J.; Broom, D.R. Eating with a smaller spoon decreases bite size, eating rate and ad libitum food intake in healthy young males. Br. J. Nutr. 2018, 120, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ferriday, D.; Bosworth, M.L.; Lai, S.; Godinot, N.; Martin, N.; Martin, A.A.; Rogers, P.J.; Brunstrom, J.M. Effects of eating rate on satiety: A role for episodic memory? Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Woodward, E.; Haszard, J.; Worsfold, A.; Venn, B. Comparison of Self-Reported Speed of Eating with an Objective Measure of Eating Rate. Nutrients 2020, 12, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhu, B.; Haruyama, Y.; Muto, T.; Yamazaki, T. Association between eating speed and metabolic syndrome in a three-year population-based cohort study. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 25, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tao, L.; Yang, K.; Huang, F.; Liu, X.; Li, X.; Luo, Y.; Wu, L.; Guo, X. Association between self-reported eating speed and metabolic syndrome in a Beijing adult population: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gonçalves, R.F.M.; Chehter, E.Z. Perfil mastigatório de obesos mórbidos submetidos à gastroplastia. Rev. CEFAC 2012, 14, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Genaro, K.F.; Berretin-Felix, G.; Rehder, M.I.B.C.; Marchesan, I.Q. Avaliação Miofuncional orofacial—Protocolo MBGR. Rev. CEFAC 2009, 11, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Isabel, C.A.C.; Moysés, M.R.; van der Bilt, A.; Gameiro, G.H.; Ribeiro, J.C.R.; Pereira, L.J. The relationship between masticatory and swallowing behaviors and body weight. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 151, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hollis, J.H. The effect of mastication on food intake, satiety and body weight. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 193, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Porter, D.; Cosgrove, C.; Middleton, E. An Unusual Case of Small Bowel Obstruction. J. Med. Cas. 2015, 6, 517–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Park, S.; Shin, W.S. Differences in eating behaviors and masticatory performances by gender and obesity status. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 138, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, J.; Zhang, N.; Hu, L.; Li, Z.; Li, R.; Li, C.; Wang, S. Improvement in chewing activity reduces energy intake in one meal and modulates plasma gut hormone concentrations in obese and lean young Chinese men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. White, A.K.; Venn, B.; Lu, L.W.; Rush, E.; Gallo, L.M.; Yong, J.L.C.; Farella, M. A comparison of chewing rate between overweight and normal BMI individuals. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 145, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tada, A.; Miura, H. Association of mastication and factors affecting masticatory function with obesity in adults: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yamane, M.; Ekuni, D.; Mizutani, S.; Kataoka, K.; Sakumoto-Kataoka, M.; Kawabata, Y.; Omori, C.; Azuma, T.; Tomofuji, T.; Iwasaki, Y.; et al. Relationships between eating quickly and weight gain in Japanese university students: A longitudinal study. Obesity 2014, 22, 2262–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lee, K.S.; Kim, D.H.; Jang, J.S.; Nam, G.E.; Shin, Y.N.; Bok, A.R.; Kim, M.J.; Cho, K.H. Eating rate is associated with cardiometabolic risk factors in Korean adults. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovas. 2013, 23, 635–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Krop, E.M.; Hetherington, M.M.; Nekitsing, C.; Miquel, S.; Postelnicu, L.; Sarkar, A. Influence of oral processing on appetite and food intake—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Appetite 2018, 125, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Andrade, C.G.; Lobo, A. Weight loss in the first month post-gastroplasty following diet progression with introduction of solid food three weeks after surgery. Arq. Bras. Cir. Dig. 2014, 27, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Goh, A.T.; Choy, J.Y.M.; Chua, X.H.; Ponnalagu, S.; Khoo, C.M.; Whitton, C.; van Dam, R.M.; Forde, C.G. Increased oral processing and a slower eating rate increase glycaemic, insulin and satiety responses to a mixed meal tolerance test. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 2719–2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. McCrickerd, K.; Forde, C.G. Sensory influences on food intake control: Moving beyond palatability. Obes. Rev. 2016, 17, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Moraes, E.T.R.; Almeida, L.M.R.; Santos, A.C.M. Autopercepção da Mastigação e Deglutição em Adultos Obesos; Graduação, Centro Universitário de Várzea Grande: Várzea Grande, Brazil, 2020; Available online: https://www.repositoriodigital.univag.com.br/index.php/tccfono/article/view/566/550 (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  54. Dagan, S.; Goldenshluger, A.; Globus, I.; Schweiger, C.; Kessler, Y.; Sandbank, G.; Ben-Porat, T.; Sinai, T. Nutritional Recommendations for Adult Bariatric Surgery Patients: Clinical Practice. Adv. Nutr. 2017, 8, 382–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. McGrice, M.; Don, K. Interventions to improve long-term weight loss in patients following bariatric surgery: Challenges and solutions. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2015, 8, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Snyder-Marlow, G.; Taylor, D.; Lenhard, M. Nutrition care for patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2010, 110, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Pedroni-Pereira, A.; Araujo, D.S.; Scudine, K.G.O.; Prado, D.G.A.; Lima, D.A.N.L.; Castelo, P.M. Chewing in adolescents with overweight and obesity: An exploratory study with behavioral approach. Appetite 2016, 107, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jiang, H.; Li, C.; Wang, Z.; Cao, J.; Shi, X.; Ma, J.; Liu, H. Assessment of osseous morphology of temporomandibular joint in asymptomatic participants with chewing-side preference. J. Oral Rehabil. 2015, 42, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pasinato, F.; Oliveira, A.G.; Santos-Couto-Paz, C.C.; Zeredo, J.L.; Bolzan, G.P.; Macedo, S.B.; Corrêa, E.C. Study of the kinematic variables of unilateral and habitual mastication of healthy individuals. Codas 2017, 29, e20160074. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bourdiol, P.; Hennequin, M.; Peyron, M.A.; Woda, A. Masticatory Adaptation to Occlusal Changes. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ledogar, J.A.; Dechow, P.C.; Wang, Q.; Gharpure, P.H.; Gordon, A.D.; Baab, K.L.; Smith, A.L.; Weber, G.W.; Grosse, I.R.; Ross, C.F.; et al. Human feeding biomechanics: Performance, variation, and functional constraints. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Alkhowaiter, S.; Alotaibi, R.M.; Alwehaibi, K.K.; Aljohany, A.; Alruhaimi, B.; Almasaad, M.; Alshammari, S.A.; Alsahafi, M.A. The Effect of Body Mass Index on the Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Among a Saudi Population. Cureus 2021, 13, e17751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nam, S.Y. Obesity-Related Digestive Diseases and Their Pathophysiology. Gut. Liver 2017, 15, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Le Pluart, D.; Sabaté, J.M.; Bouchoucha, M.; Hercberg, S.; Benamouzig, R.; Julia, C. Functional gastrointestinal disorders in 35,447 adults and their association with body mass index. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 41, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Thrift, A.P.; Shaheen, N.J.; Gammon, M.D.; Bernstein, L.; Reid, B.J.; Onstad, L.; Risch, H.A.; Liu, G.; Bird, N.C.; Wu, A.H.; et al. Obesity and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s esophagus: A Mendelian randomization study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014, 30, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Garcia, J.M.; Splenser, A.E.; Kramer, J.; Alsarraj, A.; Fitzgerald, S.; Ramsey, D.; El-Serag, H.B. Circulating inflammatory cytokines and adipokines are associated with increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus: A case-control study. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 12, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lacy, B.E.; Cangemi, D.; Vazquez-Roque, M. Management of Chronic Abdominal Distension and Bloating. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 19, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Miquel-Kergoat, S.; Azais-Braesco, V.; Burton-Freeman, B.; Hetherington, M.M. Effects of chewing on appetite, food intake and gut hormones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 151, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mahan, L.K.; Escott-Stump, S.; Raymond, J.L. Krause Alimentos, Nutrição e Dietoterapia, , 14th ed.; Guanabara Koogan: São Paulo, Brasil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karl, J.P.; Armstrong, N.J.; Player, R.A.; Rood, J.C.; Soares, J.W.; McClung, H.L. The Fecal Metabolome Links Diet Composition, Foacidic positive ion conditions, chromatographicallyod Processing, and the Gut Microbiota to Gastrointestinal Health in a Randomized Trial of Adults Consuming a Processed Diet. J. Nutr. 2022, 152, 2342–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Snauwaert, E.; Paglialonga, F.; Vande Walle, J.; Wan, M.; Desloovere, A.; Polderman, N.; Renken-Terhaerdt, J.; Shaw, V.; Shroff, R. The benefits of dietary fiber: The gastrointestinal tract and beyond. Pediatr. Nephrol. 2023, 38, 2929–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Paphangkorakit, J.; Kanpittaya, K.; Pawanja, N.; Pitiphat, W. Effect of chewing rate on meal intake. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2019, 127, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cichero, J.A.Y. Evaluating chewing function: Expanding the dysphagia field using food oral processing and the IDDSI framework. J. Texture Stud. 2020, 51, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Goto, T.; Nakamich, A.; Watanabe, M.; Nagao, K.; Matsuyama, M.; Ichikawa, T. Influence of food volume per mouthful on chewing and bolus properties. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 15, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Alves, M.P. Associação entre Mastigação e Excesso de Peso: Uma Revisão Sistemática; Mestrado, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso: Cuiabá, Brazil, 2014; Available online: http://ri.ufmt.br/handle/1/473 (accessed on 25 July 2023).
  76. Pauletti, N.R.; Callegari-Jacques, S.M.; Fornari, L.; Moraes, J.I.; Fornari, F. Reduced masticatory function predicts gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophageal dysphagia in patients referred for upper endoscopy: A cross-sectional study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2022, 54, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Pedersen, A.; Sørensen, C.E.; Proctor, G.B.; Carpenter, G.H. Salivary functions in mastication, taste and textural perception, swallowing and initial digestion. Oral Dis. 2018, 24, 1399–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Pauletti, R.N.; Callegari-Jacquesb, S.M.; Fornaric, L.; Moraes, I.; Fornari, F. Reduced mastication is a risk factor for Rome IV postprandial distress syndrome in patients investigated with upper endoscopy. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gas. 2022, 46, 102032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Vakhshuury, M.; Khoshdel, A. The Relation between Dietary Patterns and Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders among Iranian Military Men. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2019, 21, 2. [Google Scholar]
  80. Albuquerque, L.C.; Paracampo, C.C.P. Selection of Behavior by Justifications as Constituent of Rules. Trends Psychol. 2017, 25, 2025–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Carvalló, B.N.; Albuquerque, L.C.; Faria, G.O.; Paracampo, C.C.P. Effects of Justifications on Children´s Reading Behavior. Trends Psychol. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sousa, L.D.M.; Paracampo, C.C.P.; Albuquerque, L.C. Efeitos de histórias experimentais e de justificativas sociais sobre o comportamento de seguir regras. Psicol. Reflex. Crítica. 2015, 28, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sociodemographic profile of candidates for bariatric surgery.
Table 1. Sociodemographic profile of candidates for bariatric surgery.
n (%)p-Value *
Gender
Female58 (96.7%)<0.001
Male2 (3.3%)
Marital Status
Single20 (33.3%)<0.001
Married38 (63.3%)
Divorced1 (1.7%)
Widowed1 (1.7%)
Education Levels
Complete Elementary Education1 (1.7%)<0.001
Incomplete Elementary Education3 (5%)
Complete High School Education26 (43.3%)
Incomplete High School Education5 (8.3%)
Complete Higher Education13 (21.7%)
Incomplete Higher Education12 (20%)
Family Income **
≤USD 253.7312 (20%)<0.001
>USD 253.74 to USD 763.6334 (56.7%)
>USD 763.63 to USD 1.268.6512 (20%)
>USD 1.268.652 (3.33%)
City of Residence
Belém and Metropolitan Region I41 (68.3%)<0.001
Interior of the State of Pará19 (31.7%)
Receipt of guidance to prevent gastrointestinal symptoms
Yes9 (15%)<0.001
No51 (85%)
Age in years (mean ± SD ***)39.6 ± 10.4
BMI in kg/m2 (mean ± SD)46.2 ± 9
* Chi-square test. ** Values regarding the Brazilian minimum wage converted to US dollar amounts in the year 2020. *** Standard Deviation.
Table 2. Characterization of self-perception regarding chewing among candidates for bariatric surgery.
Table 2. Characterization of self-perception regarding chewing among candidates for bariatric surgery.
n (%)p-Value *
Putting small pieces of food in the mouth
Always17 (28.3%) <0.001
Frequently1 (1.7%)
Sometimes16 (26.7%)
Never26 (43.3%)
Chewing slowly
Always6 (10%)<0.001
Frequently 3 (5%)
Sometimes17 (28.3%)
Never34 (56.7%)
Chewing on both sides
Always 11 (18.3%)<0.001
Frequently 9 (15%)
Sometimes10 (16.7%)
Never30 (50%)
Cutting food with front teeth
Always 32 (53.3%)<0.001
Frequently 3 (5%)
Sometimes10 (16.7%)
Never15 (25%)
Closing the mouth while chewing
Always 42 (70%) <0.001
Frequently 2 (3.3%)
Sometimes11 (18.3%)
Never5 (8.3%)
Feeling pain while chewing
Always 1 (1,7%)<0.001
Frequently 3 (5%)
Sometimes21 (35%)
Never35 (58.3%)
Drinking liquids during the meal
Always 15 (25%)0.002
Frequently 8 (13.3%)
Sometimes27 (45%)
Never10 (16.7%)
Taking a long time to finish meals
Always 2 (3.3%)<0.001
Frequently 1 (1.7%)
Sometimes14 (23.3%)
Never43 (71.7%)
Considering chewing causes any issue
Always 1 (1.7%)<0.001
Frequently 3 (5%)
Sometimes21 (35%)
Never35 (58.3%)
* Chi-square test.
Table 3. Evaluation of chewing behavior among candidates for bariatric surgery.
Table 3. Evaluation of chewing behavior among candidates for bariatric surgery.
n (%)p-Value *
Incision or cutting of food
Front Teeth32 (53.3%) 0.002
Side Teeth18 (30%)
Absence or use of cutlery10 (16.7%)
Chewing pattern
Bilateral5 (8.3%)<0.001
Right Unilateral23 (38.3%)
Left Unilateral32 (53.3%)
Lip closure
Systematic 53 (88.3%)<0.001
Non-systematic7 (11.7%)
Chewing rhythm
Slow16 (26.7%) <0.001
Fast44 (73.3%)
Jaw movement
Rotational35 (58.3%) 0.197
Vertical25 (41.7%)
Food bolus size
Small12 (20%)<0.001
Big48 (80%)
Excessive chewing
Yes32 (53.3%)0.606
No28 (46.7%)
Scarcity of chewing
Yes26 (43.3%)0.302
No34 (56.7%)
Need for liquid after the meal
Yes22 (36.7%)0.039
No34 (56.7%)
Presence of pain while chewing
Absent26 (42.6%)<0.001
Present5 (8.2%)
Presence of noise while chewing
Absent41 (68.3%)0.005
Present19 (31.7%)
Snoring
Yes32 (53.3%)0.121
No24 (40%)
Sleep apnea
Yes16 (26.7%)<0.001
No44 (73.3%)
* Chi-square Test.
Table 4. Characterization of the frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms among candidates for bariatric surgery.
Table 4. Characterization of the frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms among candidates for bariatric surgery.
n (%)p-Value *
Emesis
Yes 3 (5%) <0.001
No 57 (95%)
Gastroesophageal reflux
Yes 24 (40%)0.121
No 36 (60%)
Flatulence
Yes 35 (58.3%)0.197
No 25 (41.7%)
Diarrhea
Yes 13 (21.7%)<0.001
No 47 (78.3%)
Constipation
Yes 5 (8.3%) <0.001
No 55 (91.7%)
Gastralgia
Yes 11 (18.3%)<0.001
No 49 (81.7%)
Postprandial heartburn
Always 0 (0%)0.522
Frequently 17 (28.3%)
Sometimes24 (40%)
Never19 (31.7%)
Postprandial gastric fullness
Always 1 (1.7%)<0.001
Frequently 18 (30%)
Sometimes24 (40%)
Never17 (28.3%)
Choking during meals
Always 0 (0%)<0.001
Frequently 3 (5%)
Sometimes16 (26.7%)
Never41 (68.3%)
* Chi-square test.
Table 5. Statistically significant relationships between self-perception of chewing, chewing characteristics, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in participants undergoing bariatric surgery candidacy.
Table 5. Statistically significant relationships between self-perception of chewing, chewing characteristics, and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in participants undergoing bariatric surgery candidacy.
n (%)p-Value *
Self-perception of chewing
Cause problemsDoes not cause problems
Scarcity of chewing
Yes 16 (26.7%) (+)10 (16.7%) (−) 0.006
No 9 (15%) (−)25 (41.7%) (+)
Presence of diarrhea
Yes 10 (16.7%) (+)3 (5%) (−)0.004
No 15 (25%) (−)32 (53.3%) (+)
Slow chewing
Always 2 (3.3%)4 (6.7%)0.048
Frequently 1 (1.7%)2 (3.3%)
Sometimes3 (5%) (−)14 (23.3%) (+)
Never19 (31.7%) (+)15 (25%) (−)
Cuts the food with the front teeth
Always 9 (15%) (−)23 (38.3%) (+)0.034
Frequently 3 (5%) (+)0 (0%) (−)
Sometimes4 (6.7%)6 (10%)
Never9 (15%)6 (10%)
Choking during meals
Always 0 (0%)0 (0%)0.035
Frequently 3 (5%) (+)0 (0%) (−)
Sometimes8 (13.3%)8 (13.3%)
Never14 (23.3%)27 (45%)
* Pearson’s chi-squared test with adjusted residual analysis, where (+) indicates a positive association in the category and (−) indicates a negative association in the analysis category. This table includes only statistically significant associations, considering p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martins, F.L.P.d.S.P.; Inete, M.B.; Souza, Y.D.d.E.S.; Costa, R.L.V.; Gabbay, R.D.; Moraes, T.M.; Costa, V.V.L.; Paracampo, C.C.P.; Albuquerque, L.C.d.; Gomes, D.L. Association between Self-Perception of Chewing, Chewing Behavior, and the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Candidates for Bariatric Surgery. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16081096

AMA Style

Martins FLPdSP, Inete MB, Souza YDdES, Costa RLV, Gabbay RD, Moraes TM, Costa VVL, Paracampo CCP, Albuquerque LCd, Gomes DL. Association between Self-Perception of Chewing, Chewing Behavior, and the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Candidates for Bariatric Surgery. Nutrients. 2024; 16(8):1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16081096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martins, Flávia Luciana Pinheiro de Souza Pinto, Millena Borges Inete, Yasmym Dannielle do Espírito Santo Souza, Rafaela Lorena Viana Costa, Rafaelle Dias Gabbay, Tainá Martins Moraes, Vanessa Vieira Lourenço Costa, Carla Cristina Paiva Paracampo, Luiz Carlos de Albuquerque, and Daniela Lopes Gomes. 2024. "Association between Self-Perception of Chewing, Chewing Behavior, and the Presence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Candidates for Bariatric Surgery" Nutrients 16, no. 8: 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16081096

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop