Chewing skills in two and three year old children: Gender and age comparisons on an adapted version of the test of mastication and swallowing (TOMASS-C)

Abstract

Purpose

Few assessment tools objectively measure chewing skills in the paediatric population. There is a need for assessment tools that use consistent foods so comparisons can be made between typically developing children and children with paediatric feeding disorders, and to measure the efficacy of treatment. The Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids for adults (TOMASS) and children (TOMASS-C) are assessments that use a cracker as a consistent measure to assess chewing skills. Normative data exist for children over 4 years, however, no data are available for younger children. This study investigated age and gender-related differences in mastication skills in typically developing children aged 2–3 years when eating a cracker.

Method

Thirty participants aged 2;0–3;10 were assessed using an adapted version of the TOMASS-C. Participants were required to eat a single Arnott’s Salada cracker, and the number of bites, masticatory cycles, swallows, and duration of time to finish the cracker were measured.

Result

Two-year-old children used more masticatory cycles and took longer to finish the cracker than 3-year-old children. There were no significant effects of age on the number of swallows and number of bites, and no significant differences between boys and girls.

Conclusion

This study provides preliminary normative data for chewing skills in children aged 2 and 3 years and confirms that the TOMASS-C is sensitive to developmental changes in mastication within this younger age range. These results expand our understanding of oral motor and chewing development in children.

Keywords:

• mastication
• swallowing
• chewing
• assessment
• children
• normative data

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the work of Dr Maria Ramsay for granting permission to use the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).