Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206258›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Functional significance and welfare implications of chewing in dogs (

Rimini Quinn, Sophie Masters, Melissa Starling, Peter John White, Kathryn Mills, David Raubenheimer, Paul McGreevy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rimini QuinnSydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Sophie MastersSydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Melissa StarlingSydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Peter John WhiteSydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Kathryn MillsSydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
David RaubenheimerCharles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Paul McGreevySydney School of Veterinary Science (SSVS), Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs chew on both nutritive and non-nutritive items as part of their food acquisition, ingestive behaviour, self-care, and social interactions. Various definitions distinguish chewing from related oral activities, such as gnawing, masticating, and biting. Surprisingly, despite chewing being a ubiquitous behaviour in dogs, its relevance to a dog's comfort, health, and purpose remains unclear. Additionally, the risk of dental fractures or other injuries may lead veterinarians to advise against feeding bones to dogs. This article explores the literature on chewing in dogs through the ethological framework of "Tinbergen's Four Questions" and the Five Domains framework for animal welfare assessment. Evidence is gathered from wild and domestic canids and from human and animal models where shared physiological or biological processes provide insight. Chewing appears to promote biological fitness, providing benefits such as dental and oral hygiene, digestive health, bone strength, psychological health, and stress management. Furthermore, this article discusses the evolutionary importance of chewing, the mechanisms underlying bite force, chew rate and morphology, and the development of chewing throughout a dog's life, from primary teeth eruption to senescence. Application of the Five Domains framework for animal welfare helps assess the impact of chewing, or lack thereof, on a dog's welfare. A dog's preference for chew items is primarily driven by odour, taste, and mouthfeel. Macronutrient proportions may also play a role in food preferences, which, in turn, can affect the selection of chewable items. A lack of preferred chew items may result in redirected chewing toward less appropriate items, such as non-food chews that could be harmful to dentition or the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Chewing on such inappropriate items may also lead to the adoption of alternative oral behaviours or reduced their contentment by impeding telos. Overall, chewing positively impacts a dog's physical and psychological health, contributing to its welfare and appearing essential as a regular part of a dog's daily life. However, the significant benefits of chewing must be carefully weighed against potential risks.

Indexed as

bite forcechew ratedental healthdietfood acquisitiongnawstresstelos

Identifiers

PMID40206258
PMCPMC11980702

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.