Content uploaded by Wendy Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wendy Brown on Feb 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Influence of Chewing on Dental Health in Dogs
S Bjone1, W Brown2, J. Billingham3, A. Harris3 and P McGenity3
1 School of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
2 Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
3 Masterfoods Complementary Petcare, UK
Abstract
Periodontal disease is a common problem in dogs. Previous studies have shown that dental
deposits in dogs can be reduced by feeding a daily dental chew. This study compares the
effectiveness of two chews of different toughness. Both chews significantly reduced plaque
(p=0.003) and calculus (p=0.008). The tougher chew required significantly more time
(p=0.001) and number of bites (p=0.001) to consume than the standard chew. The increased
time and chewing to consume the chew with greater toughness was associated with a
directional improvement in oral health, although not statistically significant, as compared to
the standard chew.
Introduction
Periodontal disease is the most common oral condition in dogs (Gorrel, 1998; Hennet, 1995),
and is possibly the most common disease in small animal practice (Gorrel & Robinson, 1995)
or for dogs specifically (DuPont, 1998; Harvey, 1998). A study of 31,484 dogs examined at
private veterinary practices in the United States found dental calculus and gingivitis to be the
most commonly reported disorders (Lund, Armstrong, Kirk, Kolar, & Klausner, 1999).
A frank definition of periodontal disease would be “gingivitis that has been neglected”
(Colmery & Frost, 1986). The disease has a multi-stage development initiated by bacterial
plaque that accumulates on tooth surfaces, resulting in gingival inflammation (gingivitis).
Gingivitis does not develop unless plaque is present (DuPont, 1998). Plaque that accumulates
for extended periods calcifies and becomes calculus, which is difficult to remove without
professional treatment (Harvey, 1998). Calculus, in itself, is not detrimental, but it does
provide increased surface area upon which more plaque can accumulate (Gorrel, 1998;
Lindhe, 1989). The gingivitis which results from plaque accumulation can lead to
periodontitis, which gives rise to tissue destruction and possible tooth loss (Harvey, 1998).
Chewing mechanically disrupts the accumulating plaque, and is therefore a self-cleaning
action (Hennet, 1995). Chewing also stimulates flow of saliva, which contains anti-bacterial
agents that help clean the mouth (Gorrel, 2001). Therefore, chewing‟s initial physical
abrasions as well as the resulting saliva flow help keep the mouth clean. In humans, studies
have found no significant benefit from vigorous chewing of raw carrot or apples on oral
health (Lindhe & Wicen, 1969; Wade, 1971); however, this may be due to the structure and
spacing of human teeth (Lindhe, 1989). The scissor bite of the dog would be expected to
impart greater benefit from vigorous chewing than the human teeth occlusion.
Previous studies have shown that dental deposits in dogs can be reduced by feeding a daily
dental chew (Brown & McGenity, 2005; Gorrel & Bierer, 1999; Gorrel & Rawlings, 1996;
Gorrel, Warrick, & Bierer, 1999). It was theorised that a greater reduction in dental deposits
could be achieved by increasing the toughness of the dental chew, due to increased
mastication and time for consumption. The present three-period crossover study investigated
the effectiveness of two chews, which were formulated to have significantly different
toughness properties. Efficacy was determined by measuring the extent of gingivitis and the
2
accumulation of dental plaque and calculus (clinical signs of periodontal disease) in dogs fed
the different dietary regimens. The number of bites and time to consume each of the chews
was recorded.
Materials and Methods
Study Animals
Twelve dogs (7 males and 5 females) of mixed breeds were used in the current study. Dogs‟
ages ranged from 1 to 12 years and body weights ranged from 4 to 27 kg. All dogs were
housed in kennels at the University of New England, Armidale, NSW, for the duration of the
study. A qualified veterinarian examined all dogs before beginning experimental procedures,
and any animal that was considered unsuitable on the basis of health or temperament was
excluded from the study.
Animal Ethics and Welfare
Authority to conduct this study was granted by the UNE Animal Ethics Committee, in
accordance with Section 25 of the Animal Research Act (1985). Written permission was
obtained from all pet owners for the inclusion of their animals in this study. Animals received
the highest standard of care throughout the study, in accordance with UNE Animal Ethics
Committee guidelines.
Diet
Throughout the study, all dogs were fed a Reference Diet consisting of a premium complete
and balanced commercial dry dog fooda in combination with a premium complete and
balanced commercial tinned foodb in a ratio of 1:2 by weight. The Reference Diet was fed in
the morning and any refusals were weighed and recorded. Dogs were fed maintenance energy
requirements (MER) as determined by the formula MER (kcal) = 140 x BW(kg)0.75 and
amounts were adjusted as necessary to maintain ideal body weight. Fresh water was available
ad libitum.
Study Design
The study was designed as a Latin square three-period crossover study. The following three
dietary regimens were fed over the three periods:
1. Reference Diet + Chew A
2. Reference Diet + Chew B
3. Reference Diet + No Chew (Control)
The products tested in this study were two variations (a standard and a modified form) of a
dental hygiene chew for dogs. These chews differed in their texture, by the inclusion of
additional fibre in the experimental chew to increase toughness, but were otherwise identical.
Chew A: Standard - This is an extruded starch-based dental chew for dogs.
Chew B: Modified - This experimental chew included additional fibre to create a chew
with increased toughness.
Chew A can be described as having a firm but chewy texture with the flexibility of a garden
hose. Chew B, on the other hand, is more rigid and does not bend easily.
a Pedigree Advance Adult - Turkey and Rice (MasterFoods ANZ, Raglan, NSW)
b Pedigree Advance Energy - Chicken and Rice (MasterFoods ANZ, Wodonga, VIC)
3
Experimental Procedures
Each period of the experiment consisted of a two-week pre-test phase followed by a four-
week test phase. Dental scoring procedures were conducted under light general anaesthesia at
the conclusion of each test phase.
Pre-Test Phase (14 Days)
On Day 1, the dogs‟ teeth were scaled and polished to provide a clean tooth surface. The
dogs‟ teeth were then brushed each afternoon for the remainder of the 2-week pre-test phase
using a double-ended toothbrushc and dental paste d. The purpose of the pre-test phase was to
encourage clinically healthy gingivae prior to commencing the test phase. All dogs were
maintained on the Reference Diet throughout the pre-test phase but no dental chews were
given.
Test Phase (28 Days)
On Day 1, baseline gingivitis scores were recorded. Teeth were then scaled and polished to
provide a clean tooth surface. During each 4-week test phase, dogs were fed either Chew A or
Chew B each afternoon in addition to the Reference Diet fed each morning. The order of
chew presentation per dog was determined by a Latin square crossover design as outlined in
Table 1. Dogs received a small or large version of each chew depending on their weight. Both
versions had the same cross sectional area and profile, but differed in length. Dogs that
weighed under 10kg received the smaller chew (Dogs #1-4), while dogs over 10kg received
the larger chew (Dogs #5-12). Dogs in the control group were fed the Reference Diet in the
morning and received no chew in the afternoon. Gingivitis, plaque, and calculus scores were
recorded on the final day of each test phase. Teeth were then scaled and polished in
preparation for the next pre-test phase.
Table 1: Latin square three-period crossover design, showing the allocation of
dogs to treatments (Chew A, Chew B, or no chew).
c Dentipet (Arnolds , Shrewsbury, UK)
d Dentipet Premier dental paste (Arnolds , Shrewsbury, UK)
Dog
1st Period 2nd Period 3rd Period
1 A B -
2 A B -
3 B - A
4 B - A
5 - A B
6 - A B
7 - B A
8 - B A
9 A - B
10 A - B
11 B A -
12 B A -
4
Dental Scoring
An examiner that was trained in these procedures and blind to designated treatment groups
performed dental scoring. The order of assessment was always gingivitis, plaque, and then
calculus. Plaque and calculus accumulation and the severity of gingivitis were scored using
human techniques modified for veterinary use. The methods are summarized in Tables 2-4.
For each dog, 22 teeth were scored for gingivitis, plaque, and calculus:
Left and Right Maxilla: I3, C, P2, P3, P4, M1
Left and Right Mandible: C, P2, P3, P4, M1
(I=Incisor; C=Canine; P=Pre-molar; M=Molar)
Table 2: Gingivitis
A modified Löe and Silness (1967) gingival index was used. The buccal gingiva for each
scored tooth was divided into thirds (mesial, buccal, distal). Each site was evaluated by the
following criteria.
Criteria
0 = No gingivitis
1 = Slight inflammation—slight redness but no bleeding on probing
2 = Mild inflammation—slight redness and swelling, with delayed bleeding on gentle probing
of the gingival sulcus
3 = Moderate inflammation—the gingiva is red and swollen and bleeds on gentle probing of
the sulcus
4 = Severe inflammation—the gingiva is red or reddish-blue, the gingival margin is swollen,
and there is a tendency to spontaneous haemorrhage or profuse haemorrhage on probing
and/or ulcerations along the gingival margin
Calculations
A total tooth score for each tooth was obtained by adding together the scores from each of the
three sites. The tooth scores from all teeth scored were then averaged to obtain a mean whole
mouth score for each dog.
Table 3: Plaque Index
A Quigley and Hein index (1962) as modified by Turesky, Gilmore and Glickman (1970) was
used. Plaque was disclosed by applying Red Cote® dental disclosing solution (1.5% D&C Red
No. 28; John Butler Company, Chicago, IL, USA) to the buccal surface of each tooth and
immediately rinsing with water. The gingival and coronal halves for each tooth were scored
for coverage and intensity.
Criteria
Coverage Intensity
0 = No observable plaque 1 = Light—pink to light red
1 = 1-24% coverage 2 = Moderate—red
2 = 25-49% coverage 3 = Heavy—dark red
3 = 50-74% coverage
4 = 75-100% coverage
Calculations
The coverage was multiplied by the intensity factor to give a gingival and occlusal score for
each tooth. The gingival and occlusal values for each tooth were added together to obtain a
tooth total. The score for each dog was the mean score for all teeth scored.
5
Table 4: Calculus Index
The Warrick and Gorrel (1997) method was used. The disclosed plaque was removed with a
toothbrush and the teeth were rinsed and air-dried. Each vertical third (mesial, buccal, distal)
of the buccal surface of each tooth was scored for coverage and thickness.
Criteria
Coverage Thickness
0 = No observable calculus 1 = Light <0.5mm
1 = 1-24% coverage 2 = Moderate 0.5-1.0mm
2 = 25-49% coverage 3 = Heavy >1.0mm
3 = 50-74% coverage
4 = 75-100% coverage
Calculations
The coverage score was multiplied by the thickness score for each tooth surface. The tooth
score was the sum of the scores for each of the three tooth surfaces. The sum of the teeth
scores was averaged to obtain a whole mouth mean calculus score for each animal.
Chewing Measurements
Dogs were filmed eating dental chews three times per each week during each Test Phase. An
electronic timer was used to record the time it took each dog to consume the whole chew,
starting from the first bite until the chew was finished. The number of gnawing bites executed
on the left and right side of the mouth and „other bites‟ were recorded using a Laboratory
Counter (Clay Adams, Parsippany, NJ, USA) while reviewing the video recordings. Gnawing
bites were identified as bites used to sever a piece from the whole chew. Often, the chew was
placed to the back of the mouth in the molar region for this gnawing motion. „Other bites‟
were any bite that was not a gnaw bite. Total bites were calculated by adding together gnaws
and other bites.
Texture Analysis
Texture analysis was carried out using an XHDi Texture Analyser (Stable Micro Systems,
Surrey, UK). A penetration test entailed pushing a probe of 6mm diameter into the product at
a speed of 1mm/sec, and measuring the force encountered. A fracture wedge test entailed
pushing a V-shaped wedge into the product, again at a speed of 1mm/sec, and measuring the
force encountered.
Statistical Analyses
Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in the
dental scores for Chews A and B and the reference diet. Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to
estimate significant differences in chewing behaviours for Chew A and Chew B. Pearson
correlations determined significant relationships between two variables. All alpha levels were
set at α=0.05.
Results
Both chews were effective in significantly reducing the accumulation of plaque (p=0.003,
pn2=0.42) and calculus (p=0.008, pn2=0.35) as compared to the Reference Diet (Figure 1).
Gingivitis did not significantly differ during the baseline tooth brushing phases (p=0.668),
and there was also no significant difference in gingivitis scores between both chews and the
reference diet (p=0.110). In addition, there was no significant difference in gingivitis scores
when comparing the three pre-test tooth brushing phases and the two Chews (p=0.286). Dogs
6
had less plaque and gingivitis when fed Chew B than Chew A, but this difference was not
significant.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Gingivitis Plaque Calculus
Dental Score
Chew A
Chew B
Reference Diet
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
ab Means within columns for each dental score not sharing a common superscript letter
differ significantly (p<0.05).
Figure 1: Gingivitis, plaque, and calculus scores for Chew A and Chew B, and the
Reference Diet. Data shown are group means (±SEM) of whole mouth scores for all
dogs (n=12).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Gnaw Left Gnaw Right Total
Gnaws Other Bites Total Bites
Number of Gnaws or Bites
Chew A
Chew B
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
b
b
b
ab Means within columns for each chewing measure not sharing a common superscript
letter differ significantly (p<0.05).
Figure 2: Mean number of gnaws and bites required to consume Chew A and
Chew B. Total gnaws is the sum of left and right gnaws, while total bites includes left
gnaws, right gnaws, and other bites. Data shown are group means (±SEM) for all dogs
(n=12).
7
Chew B took significantly more time to consume than Chew A (p=0.001). Chew B also
required more gnaws (p=0.001) as well as more „other bites‟ (p=0.001) and total bites
(p=0.001) to consume compared to Chew A (Figure 2). The bite rate (bites/minutes) did not
differ between Chew A and Chew B (p=0.627).
Chew B required more gnaws on the left (p=0.001) and right side (p=0.001) to consume
compared to Chew A. Overall, dogs did not show a preference for gnawing on the left or right
side for either chew as indicated by the left and right gnaws in Figure 2. However, some dogs
did show an individual preference for one side. Table 5 shows side preferences for each dog
for both chews. A singular indication of side preference was determined by subtracting the
number of gnaws on the right side from the number of gnaws on the left all divided by total
gnaws. Eleven dogs were consistent in their side preference for both chews. One dog
switched his side preference; Pogo gnawed more on the left side for Chew A and the right
side for Chew B. Figure 3 presents two dogs each gnawing on a different side of the mouth.
Table 5: Side preference as determined by the mean percentage of gnaws, left side
minus the right side, for each dog and Chew. A positive value indicates a dog that
gnaws more on the left side whereas a negative value indicates a dog that gnaws more
on the right side. For instance, Charlie gnawed 38.7% more on his right side than his
left side for Chew A.
Despite the significant increases in chewing between Chew A and Chew B, there were no
significant correlations between total gnaws or total bites and any dental score (gingivitis,
plaque, calculus) for either Chew. There were also no correlations found between gnaws on
the left or right side and any of the dental scores for the respective side.
Chew A Chew B Preference
1Jackie 5.5 9.6 Left
2Bandit 17.2 23.0 Left
8Toby 1.4 12.4 Left
9Blackey 67.9 50.6 Left
12 Reba 38.5 5.4 Left
5Pogo 6.2 -10.4 Left, Right
3Snoop -2.8 -4.9 Right
4Charlie -38.7 -14.2 Right
6Tim -9.3 -11.9 Right
7Penny -32.7 -47.1 Right
10 Smudge -29.4 -11.7 Right
11 Perdy -70.7 -30.9 Right
Dog
8
Figure 3. Tim (on left) gnaws with his right side while Pogo gnaws with his left.
The texture of the chews was significantly different as confirmed by texture analysis. Fifteen
samples of each chew were subjected to texture analysis using the 6mm probe penetration and
the fracture wedge tests outlined in the Methods. Figure 4 shows typical force/time plots for
the two chews from the penetration test, while Figure 5 shows similar plots using the fracture
wedge test. It can be seen in both cases that the peak forces and areas under the curve are
significantly larger for the tougher chew B. Table 6 displays mean key texture parameter
values across the fifteen samples of each chew.
Figure 4: Penetration test for Chew A and Chew B.
9
Figure 5: Fraction wedge test for Chew A and Chew B.
Table 6: Mean texture parameter values for Chew A and Chew B (n=15).
Discussion
Both dental hygiene chews were effective in reducing plaque accumulation and the severity of
gingivitis as compared to the standard diet, concurring with previous research (Gorrel &
Bierer, 1999; Gorrel & Rawlings, 1996; Gorrel et al., 1999; Rawlings et al., 1998). The
effectiveness of both Chews was equal to the effect of tooth brushing on gingivitis. Therefore,
for those non-compliant owners that do not brush their dogs‟ teeth daily (Miller & Harvey,
1994), daily provision of a dental chew would still maintain gingival health.
Rawlings et al. (1998) noted that the physical abrasiveness of their dental chew, rather than
the chemical activity of chlorhexidine, might have had the greater impact on oral health in
their study. The current study tested the physical attribute toughness, which was hypothesized
to increase chewing, thus improving oral health. Although Chew B required significantly
more bites and time to consume as compared to Chew A, there was no significant difference
in any dental measure (gingivitis, plaque, calculus) between the two chews.
Chew A Chew B Chew A Chew B
Area Under Curve (kg·mm) 203.4 581.6 145.6 261.5
Peak Force (kg) 21.7 72.5 19.4 32.9
Penetration Test
Fracture Wedge Test
10
It has been found that „soft‟ chewing is better than no chewing (Egelberg, 1965b) and that
chewing a hard diet reduces plaque accumulation and the severity of gingivitis more so than
chewing a soft diet (Egelberg, 1965a). It is surprising then that the increased chewing with
Chew B did not significantly improve dental health. There may be a correlation between
chewing and dental deposit removal; however, current dental health assessment methods may
not be adequately sensitive to indicate a significant difference between dental chews. Both
chews were identical, except that Chew B had increased fibre content resulting in greater
toughness. Possibly, a different ingredient that increases toughness would have a greater
impact on dental health. Or, it may be that Chew B was too tough requiring a more prehensile
quality to grasp the teeth on the initial bite and on retraction.
The higher inclusion rate of the fibre ingredient in Chew B resulted in a different texture,
indicated by the greater rigidity of Chew B as compared with the flexibility of Chew A. It is
likely that the abrasive action against the tooth surface was altered by this change in texture. It
appears that the softer Chew A was in fact more effective at cleansing the teeth on a per bite
basis, and that Chew B, by comparison, required many more bites to have an equivalent
impact on dental health. Therefore, a larger Chew A, rather than a chew with greater
toughness, should be tested to determine the effect of increased chewing of the same material
on oral health.
Earlier studies have found an improvement in oral health with the daily addition of oral
hygiene chews to the diet, but do not report the number of bites necessary to consume the
chews. However, one study did note the time required to consume the current study‟s Chew
A. On average, it took 2 minutes to consume Chew A with some dogs consuming the chew
much faster (ie 44 seconds) (Brown, McGenity, & Servet, 2004). The time required to
consume the chews in the present study ranged from 44 seconds (Chew A) to 4.5 minutes
(Chew B). These short consumption times may lead the observer to believe that the chew was
not effective when the dog “swallowed” it so quickly. However, these short-lived chews do
require numerous bites to consume: number of bites ranged from 92 (Chew A) to 530 bites
(Chew B). By comparison, the Reference Diet required, on average, between 269 and 827
bites to consume.
The current study is the first to document the number of bites in addition to the time required
to consume a dental hygiene chew. While consumption times may be misleading in their
brevity, the number of bites required to consume a chew offers a different perspective and
illuminates the physical mechanism, chewing, by which these dental hygiene chews work.
References
Brown, W. Y. & McGenity, P. (2005). Effective periodontal disease control using dental
hygiene chews. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry, 22(1), 15-19.
Brown, W. Y., McGenity, P., & Servet, E. (2004) Short and long-term effects of feeding a
daily oral hygiene chew on canine dental deposits. Waltham Veterinary Focus. April
supplement.
Colmery, B., III, & Frost, P. (1986). Periodontal disease: Etiology and pathogenesis. The
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 16(5), 817-834.
DuPont, G. A. (1998). Prevention of periodontal disease. Veterinary Clinics of North
America: Small Animal Practice, 28(5), 1129-1145.
Egelberg, J. (1965a). Local effects of diet on plaque formation and development of gingivitis
in dogs. I. Effects of hard and soft diets. Odontologisk Revy, 16, 31-41.
11
Egelberg, J. (1965b). Local effects of diet on plaque formation and gingivitis development in
dogs. III. Effect of frequency of meals and tube feeding. Odontologisk Revy, 16, 50-
60.
Gorrel, C. (1998). Periodontal disease and diet in domestic pets. Journal of Nutrition, 128,
2712S-2714S.
Gorrel, C. (2001). The effects of diet on periodontal disease. Paper presented at the World
Small Animal Veterinary Association World Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
Gorrel, C., & Bierer, T. L. (1999). Long term effects of a dental hygiene chew on the
periodontal health of dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry, 16(3), 109-113.
Gorrel, C., & Rawlings, J. M. (1996). The role of a 'dental hygiene chew' in maintaining
periodontal health in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry, 13(1), 31-34.
Gorrel, C., & Robinson, J. (1995). Periodontal therapy and extraction technique. In D. A.
Crossley & S. Penman (Eds.), Manual of Small Animal Dentistry (2nd ed., pp. 139-
149). Cheltenham, UK: British Small Animal Veterinary Association.
Gorrel, C., Warrick, J., & Bierer, T. L. (1999). Effect of a new dental hygiene chew on
periodontal health in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry, 16(2), 77-80.
Harvey, C. E. (1998). Periodontal disease in dogs: Etiopathogensis, prevalence, and
significance. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 28(5),
1111-1128.
Hennet, P. R. (1995). Periodontal disease and oral microbiology. In D. A. Crossley & S.
Penman (Eds.), Manual of Small Animal Dentistry (pp. 105-113). UK: British Small
Animal Veterinary Association.
Lindhe, J. (1989). Dental plaque and dental calculus. In Textbook of Clinical Periodontology
(2nd ed., pp. 92-128). Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Lindhe, J., Hamp, S.-E., & Löe, H. (1975). Plaque induced periodontal disease in beagle dogs.
A 4-year clinical, roentgenographical and histometrical study. Journal of Periodontal
Research, 10(5), 243-255.
Löe, H. (1967). The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. Journal
of Periodontology, 38(Supplement), 610-616.
Lund, E. M., Armstrong, P. J., Kirk, C. A., Kolar, L. M., & Klausner, J. S. (1999). Health
status and population characteristics of dogs and cats examined at private veterinary
practices in the United States. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association, 214(9), 1336-1341.
Miller, B. R., & Harvey, C. E. (1994). Compliance with oral hygiene recommendations
following periodontal treatment in client-owned dogs. Journal of Veterinary
Dentistry, 11(1), 18-19.
Quigley, G. A., & Hein, J. W. (1962). Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power
brushing. Journal of the American Dental Association, 65, 26-29.
Rawlings, J. M., Gorrel, C., & Markwell, P. J. (1998). Effect on canine oral health of adding
chlorhexidine to a dental hygiene chew. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry, 15(3), 129-
134.
Turesky, S., Gilmore, N. D., & Glickman, I. (1970). Reduced plaque formation by the
chloromethyl analogue of vitamin C. Journal of Periodontology, 41(1), 41-43.
Wade, A. B. (1971). Effect on dental plaque of chewing apples. Dental Practitioner, 21, 194-
196.
Warrick, J., & Gorrel, C. (1997). A more sensitive method of scoring calculus. Paper
presented at the 11th Annual Veterinary Dental Forum, Denver, CO, USA.
