Orofacial science
MYODYN. Firm chewing gum with sweeteners for graded masticatory loading
Two grades of firmness, one measured daily chewing protocol. Sugar free. Stocked by dental practices.
The Science of Facial Muscle Performance.
CORE / 01Facial resistance gumPackaging conceptThe grade index
Two grades of firmness.
MYODYN is made in two grades of firmness, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Each grade is chewed to a measured daily protocol. Start at Grade 1 and move up to Grade 2.
-
Grade 1
1 of 2
The starting grade.
Grade 1 details -
Grade 2
2 of 2
One step firmer.
Grade 2 details
Flavours
Four flavours, each matched to a grade.
Grade 1 is made in one flavour; Grade 2 in three. Each of these pouches holds 60 pieces, 183 g. Sugar free and xylitol-based.
| Grade | Flavours |
|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Frosted SpearmintGrade 1 is made in Frosted Spearmint only. |
| Grade 2 |
Also from MYODYN
The mastic gum tin
Mastic gum in a 20 g tin, in two grades: Grade 1, Firm, and Grade 2, Extra-firm. Sold online on this website. The shop is not open yet.
See the tin
Built on anatomy. Driven by science.
Function. Aesthetics. Wellness.
Subtle Changes. Real Results.
Evidence
What published research has measured about chewing.
Four figures from independent studies, with each number copied from its source. None of these studies tested MYODYN. Dental and oral function first, then wider research on teeth and later cognition.
How to read this
- Trial or observation
- A randomised trial assigns people to groups and compares them. An observational study measures people as they are. It can show an association, not a cause.
- Ratios
- Relative risk and hazard ratio compare two groups. 1.0 means no difference. 1.48 means the measured risk in the first group was 1.48 times that of the comparison group. A hazard ratio is read the same way, over time.
- The bracket
- The 95% confidence interval. If it crosses 1.0, the result is not statistically significant. Those rows are drawn with a hollow dot and a dashed line, and say so in words.
- Association is not causation
- A link in a population study does not show that one thing causes the other. People with early cognitive change may look after their teeth less, which produces the same link in reverse.
- Numbers
- Copied from each source, not rounded, and with no figures of our own added. Each figure says whether it shows medians, means or ratios.
Dental and oral function
Bite force is one of the measures used to assess oral function.
Fig. 1 Cross-sectional population study, n = 1,962, Japan, 2018
In a Japanese population study, people aged 80 recorded lower average bite force and had fewer teeth than people aged 70.
Show the numbers as a table
| Age group | Mean occlusal force (N) | Mean number of teeth |
|---|---|---|
| 70 years, n = 994 | 529 | 20.4 |
| 80 years, n = 968 | 326 | 15.4 |
Limitation Different people at each age, measured once. Not the same people followed over time.
Source Ikebe et al. 2018, PLoS One, Table 2
Independent research on mastication.
Fig. 2 Randomised controlled trial, n = 211 completers (107 gum, 104 control), adults aged 65 to 85, Japan, 2023
In a 2-month trial in adults aged 65 to 85, the group that chewed a firm training gum daily recorded higher median bite force than a control group.
Between groups at 2 months: p = 0.013.
Show the numbers as a table
| Group | Baseline | 2 months |
|---|---|---|
| Firm training gum, n = 107 | 457.8 (IQR 442.1) | 663.8 (IQR 509.1) |
| Control, n = 104 | 512.1 (IQR 447.8) | 507.0 (IQR 411.3) |
| Between groups | p = 0.25 | p = 0.013 |
Limitation Funded by a chewing gum manufacturer. Medians with wide spread (interquartile ranges 442.1 and 509.1 N in the gum group, 447.8 and 411.3 N in the control group). One measuring device.
Source Kashiwazaki et al. 2023, J Clin Med, Table 2
Independent research on mastication.
Why bite force matters
- Fig. 1
Bite force and tooth count were both lower in people aged 80 than in people aged 70.
- Fig. 2
In a 2-month trial in adults aged 65 to 85, a firm training gum was followed by higher bite force than a control group.
- Beyond the figures
In a cohort of 2,011 people aged 65 and over, poor oral function (teeth, chewing ability, tongue pressure) was associated with higher risk of physical frailty, sarcopenia, disability and mortality. Read it in the library.
Read together, these describe a measure that tends to fall with age and tooth loss, one that moved in a trial, and one that sits within a wider picture of health in later life. They are associations from different groups of people. None of these studies tested MYODYN.
Wider research
The same thread, followed into later life. Fig. 1 showed fewer teeth alongside lower bite force; Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 follow tooth loss and dental status towards cognition. They describe associations in groups of people. They did not test chewing gum, and they do not show cause and effect. A link could also run the other way.
Fig. 3 Meta-analysis of 14 longitudinal studies, n = 34,074, GRADE moderate, 2021
In pooled long-term studies, people with more tooth loss had a higher measured risk of cognitive impairment and dementia.
Right of 1.0: the outcome was recorded more often in the group with more tooth loss.
Show the numbers as a table
| Comparison | Outcome | Relative risk (95% CI) | Studies, n |
|---|---|---|---|
| More tooth loss vs less | Cognitive impairment | 1.48 (1.18 to 1.87) | 6 studies, n = 17,310 |
| More tooth loss vs less | Dementia | 1.28 (1.09 to 1.49) | 9 studies, n = 27,904 |
| Edentulous | Cognitive impairment | 1.54 (1.34 to 1.78) | not stated |
| Edentulous | Dementia | 1.40 (1.10 to 1.80) | not stated |
Limitation Observational association. It does not show causation.
Source Qi et al. 2021, J Am Med Dir Assoc
Independent research on mastication.
Fig. 4 Prospective cohort, n = 4,425, Japan, 4 years, 2012
In a 4-year Japanese cohort, few teeth without dentures and having no regular dentist were linked with later dementia onset; self-reported chewing ability was not.
Hollow dot and dashed line: not statistically significant (the interval crosses 1.0).
Show the numbers as a table
| Self-reported dental status | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | Significant |
|---|---|---|
| Few teeth and no dentures | 1.85 (1.04 to 3.31) | Yes |
| Could not chew very well | 1.25 (0.81 to 1.93) | No |
| No regular dentist | 1.44 (1.04 to 2.01) | Yes |
| Did not take care of dental health | 1.76 (0.96 to 3.20) | No |
Limitation Self-reported dental status. Short follow-up.
Source Yamamoto et al. 2012, Psychosom Med
Independent research on mastication.
Early research
Why jaw input matters to the brain
- Mouse study
In mouse tissue, electrically stimulating the jaw's masseter muscle was followed by more of an enzyme made in that muscle turning up along the trigeminal nerve and in the hippocampus, a brain region.
- Small human experiment
In 20 adults, a bite splint that evened out left and right jaw muscle activity was followed by a change in pupil size, a proxy for a brainstem arousal centre, and by better scores on a number-search task. Each person was compared with themselves; there was no control group.
Neither study used chewing gum or tested MYODYN, and neither shows that chewing affects memory. They explore how input from the jaw might reach the brain. Read both in the research library.
The research library lists every study we read, including the ones that found no link or mixed results.
Open the research libraryHow we write about it
We describe what the gum is and how it is used.
Numbers and named sources over adjectives. Where we do not know something yet, this site says so in [PLACEHOLDER] text.