| Literature DB >> 32148501 |
Yoshiaki Nomura1, Ikki Tsutsumi2, Masatoshi Nagasaki2, Hiromitsu Tsuda2, Fumihiro Koga2, Naho Kashima2, Masahide Uraguchi1,3, Ayako Okada4, Erika Kakuta5, Nobuhiro Hanada1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining good oral function is one of the goals of dental treatment. The Japanese national insurance system newly introduced the concept of management of oral function according to the life stage. For the application of management of oral functions of the elderly, seven kinds of examination is a must for the diagnosis: xerostomia, oral hygiene status, maximum occlusal pressure, tongue and labium function, tongue pressure, chewing ability, and swallowing function. We analyzed the relationship between oral functions and supplied food consistency.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32148501 PMCID: PMC7031709 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3463056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Descriptive analysis of the results of oral functions against supplied food consistency.
| Ordinary meal | Sliced meal | Fluidized meal |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xerostomia | Mean ± SD | 23.69 ± 4.97 | 23.69 ± 2.97 | 24.1 ± 4.98 | 0.923 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 25.4 (21.4–26.9) | 23.95 (21.43–27.88) | 29.1 (27–31) | ||
| Oral hygiene status (TCI) | Mean ± SD | 53.92 ± 24.33 | 53.92 ± 46.67 | 59.48 ± 24.34 | 0.876 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 61 (44–78) | 50 (35.75–67) | 67 (28–94) | ||
| Oral hygiene status | Mean ± SD | 12.3 ± 2.51 | 12.3 ± 0.83 | 3.89 ± 2.52 | 0.275 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 3.2 (1.69–5.22) | 2.58 (1.36–4.69) | 1.91 (1.32–3.00) | ||
| Occlusal force | Mean ± SD | 680 ± 1181 | 680 ± 328 | 1002 ± 1182 | 0.918 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 475 (274–1283) | 647 (271–985) | 570 (338–857) | ||
| Tongue and labium function | Mean ± SD | 3.38 ± 1.11 | 3.38 ± 0.38 | 3.63 ± 1.12 | 0.027 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 3.47 (2.8–4.47) | 3.3 (2.60–4.29) | 2.13 (1.87–2.40) | ||
| Tongue pressure | Mean ± SD | 21.01 ± 34.2 | 21.01 ± 4.67 | 21.72 ± 34.3 | 0.350 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 15.8 (6.7–23.6) | 12.9 (4.48–19.64) | 4.7 (1.4–24.4) | ||
| Masticatory function | Mean ± SD | 81.88 ± 83.69 | 81.88 ± 9.19 | 98.11 ± 83.70 | 0.221 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 70 (43–138) | 46 (31–117.75) | 22.5 (16–81) | ||
| Swallowing function | Mean ± SD | 0.15 ± 0.72 | 0.15 ± 0.89 | 0.23 ± 0.73 | 0.196 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | 0.09 (–0.3–0.45) | 0.09 (–0.16-0.45) | –0.18 (–0.81–0) | ||
| Ability | Mean ± SD | 0.19 ± 0.84 | 0.19 ± 0.3 | –0.02 ± 0.85 | 0.122 |
| Median (25–75th percentile) | –0.05 (–0.50–0.71) | 0.08 (–0.16–0.72) | 0.05 (–0.16–1.51) | ||
P values were calculated by Kruskal–Wallis tests. Ability was calculated by the three-parameter logistic model based on the IRT analysis. IRT: item response theory.
Sensitivity and specificity of oral function tests to detect the subjects who were supplied processed food.
| Cutoff point | Raw data by measuring device | Standardized criteria | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Likelihood ratio | AUR | Sensitivity | Specificity | Likelihood ratio | AUR | ||
| Xerostomia | 0.667 | 0.222 | 0.857 | 0.444 | |||||
| Oral hygiene status (TCI) | 53.0 | 0.593 | 0.538 | 1.284 | 0.571 | 0.630 | 0.222 | 0.810 | 0.426 |
| Oral hygiene status | 2.8 | 0.556 | 0.577 | 1.313 | 0.593 | ||||
| Occlusal force | 585.8 | 0.407 | 0.423 | 0.706 | 0.498 | 0.333 | 0.519 | 0.692 | 0.426 |
| Tongue and labium function | 3.4 | 0.556 | 0.577 | 1.313 | 0.585 | 0.963 | 0.000 | 0.963 | 0.481 |
| Tongue pressure | 13.6 | 0.556 | 0.538 | 1.204 | 0.585 | 0.963 | 0.148 | 1.130 | 0.556 |
| Masticatory function | 60.0 | 0.593 | 0.615 | 1.541 | 0.613 | 0.778 | 0.333 | 1.167 | 0.556 |
| Swallowing function | 0.1 | 0.556 | 0.538 | 1.204 | 0.538 | 0.074 | 0.963 | 2.000 | 0.519 |
Figure 1Item response curves and item information curves of the oral function tests. By the three-parameter logistic model, item response curves and item information curves were described. Tongue pressure and swallowing functions had high discrimination ability. Tongue and labium functions were almost flat around the 1.0 of the Y-axis.
Figure 2Characteristics of the subject who had sliced or fluidized meal. Decision analysis was applied to detect the subject who had processed food. The subjects who had malfunction of the tongue and labium all had processed food.