| Literature DB >> 35501716 |
Young-Sook Park1, Han-Pyo Hong2, Soo-Rack Ryu2, Suyong Lee3, Weon-Sun Shin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiological deterioration (aging, poor dental status, and reduced tongue pressure) makes chewing difficult. This study aimed to investigate the chewing patterns of older people with or without dentures, evaluate the textural and masticatory properties of texture-modified radish Kimchi, and investigate the correlation between dental status and tongue pressure. Additionally, differences in the subjective-objective concordance of texture-modified Kimchi were investigated using the preference test.Entities:
Keywords: Dental status; Mastication; Older people; Texture-modified food; Tongue pressure
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35501716 PMCID: PMC9059399 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03064-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 4.070
Fig. 1Number of chews (A) and chewing time (B) according to the test food hardness. Temporal muscle activity according to the test food hardness (C). Masseter muscle activities (μV.s) in natural teeth and full-denture participants according to the hardness of the test food (D) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Number of chews and chewing time according to the hardness of the test foods
| Level | Hardness | Natural teeth | Full denture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of chews | Chewing time (s) | Number of chews | Chewing time (s) | ||
| Radish | 3.19 N | 13.63 ± 5.83 a | 10.44 ± 3.31 a | 18.00 ± 10.31 ns | 14.53 ± 8.09 ns1,2 |
| Radish | 6.67 N | 17.83 ± 7.13 ab | 13.67 ± 4.94 ab | 20.38 ± 12.24 ns | 16.05 ± 7.00 ns |
| Radish | 9.01 N | 20.17 ± 7.12 abc | 14.27 ± 4.57 ab | 25.38 ± 14.19 ns | 17.06 ± 6.08 ns |
| Radish | 12.62 N | 24.08 ± 8.08 bc | 16.65 ± 4.56 ab | 30.75 ± 16.72 ns | 19.61 ± 7.42 ns |
| Radish | 24.48 N | 27.75 ± 7.92 cd | 19.40 ± 5.75 bc | 34.63 ± 15.70 ns | 22.01 ± 7.70 ns |
| Radish | 38.66 N | 34.67 ± 8.77 d | 24.40 ± 8.82 c | 42.25 ± 18.75 ns | 27.05 ± 8.42 ns |
| F | 23.88 | 18.48 | 3.00 | 3.02 | |
| P | < .001 | < .001 | 0.021 | 0.021 | |
One-way ANOVA results and multiple comparisons performed using the Bonferroni correction of the differences
One-way ANOVA p < 0.05, Bonferroni correction p < 0.003
1Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
2A value in a column with different letters (a–d) differs significantly. Means in the same column with the same letter do not differ significantly
Muscle activities according to the hardness changes in radish Kimchi
| Level | Hardness | Natural teeth | Full denture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Channel 1,21 | Channel 3,41 | Channel 1,2 | Channel 3,4 | ||
| Radish | 3.19 N | 43.88 ± 29.89 ns2.3 | 42.13 ± 17.71 a | 31.31 ± 11.73 ns | 32.12 ± 13.20 ns |
| Radish | 6.67 N | 40.80 ± 10.94 ns | 45.44 ± 16.11 ab | 32.66 ± 12.23 ns | 31.88 ± 12.59 ns |
| Radish | 9.01 N | 44.47 ± 13.97 ns | 46.84 ± 16.95 ab | 35.31 ± 13.30 ns | 34.54 ± 15.64 ns |
| Radish | 12.62 N | 48.04 ± 14.00 ns | 52.07 ± 20.70 ab | 38.34 ± 11.04 ns | 36.53 ± 10.16 ns |
| Radish | 24.48 N | 53.99 ± 18.46 ns | 56.48 ± 21.16 ab | 43.00 ± 11.95 ns | 41.54 ± 13.10 ns |
| Radish | 38.66 N | 59.92 ± 18.95 ns | 68.93 ± 33.93 b | 47.11 ± 11.39 ns | 44.89 ± 14.25 ns |
| F | 3.53 | 4.72 | 2.11 | 1.27 | |
| P | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.083 | 0.297 | |
One-way ANOVA results and multiple comparisons performed using the Bonferroni correctionof the differences
One-way ANOVA p < 0.05, Bonferroni correction p < 0.003
1Channel 1 (left temporalis), Channel 2 (right temporalis), Channel 3 (left masseter), Channel 4 (right masseter)
2Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
3A value in a column with different letters (a–d) differs significantly. Means in the same column with the same letter do not differ significantly
Comparison of tongue pressure according to dental status
| N | Dental status | mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MITP (kPa) | 24 | Natural teeth | 40.41 ± 16.65*ab | 0.026* |
| 8 | Full denture | 22.98 ± 12.13* | ||
| APL (kPa) | 24 | Natural teeth | 18.94 ± 10.27* | 0.044* |
| 8 | Full denture | 10.81 ± 62.93* |
SD Standard deviation, APL Average pressure level, MITP Maximum isometric tongue pressure
aValues are presented as mean ± standard deviation
bTongue pressure was measured using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument
*p < 0.05, comparisons between the groups were conducted using an independent t-test
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Fig. 2Proper tongue pressure based on the radish Kimchi level. The radish Kimchi was categorized into six levels of hardness and different textures based on texture profile analysis-measured hardness: level 1 (3.19 N), level 2 (6.67 N), and level 3 (9.01 N). Only one of the twenty four participants with natural teeth could press the level-3 radish Kimchi. Fourteen participants could apply the tongue pressure required to press the level-1 radish Kimchi, five participants could press level-2 radish Kimchi, and none could press the Kimchi with other hardness levels. In contrast, only one of the eight participants with full dentures could press level-1 radish Kimchi
Pearson correlation coefficients between preference and mastication properties in natural teeth
| Variables | Preference | Number of chews | Chewing time | Temporal muscle activity | Masseter muscle activity | Tongue pressure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preference | 1 | 0.533** | 0.616** | 0.219 | 0.254 | 0.409* |
| Number of chews | 1 | 0.383 | 0.347 | 0.110 | 0.256 | |
| Chewing time | 1 | 0.352 | 0.219 | 0.315 | ||
| Temporal muscle activity | 1 | 0.506* | 0.294 | |||
| Masseter muscle activity | 1 | 0.290 | ||||
| Tongue pressure | 1 |
⁎ Correlation is significant with p < 0.05
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant with p < 0.01
Pearson correlation coefficients between preference and mastication properties in full denture
| Variables | preference | Number of chews | Chewing time | Temporal muscle activity | Masseter muscle activity | Tongue pressure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preference | 1 | 0.676 | 0.846** | 0.884** | 0.761* | 0.278 |
| Number of chews | 1 | 0.893** | 0.792* | 0.326 | 0.373 | |
| Chewing time | 1 | 0.804* | 0.422 | 0.006 | ||
| Temporal muscle activity | 1 | 0.695 | 0.214 | |||
| Masseter muscle activity | 1 | 0.384 | ||||
| Tongue pressure | 1 |
⁎ Correlation is significant with p < 0.05
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant with p < 0.01
Fig. 3Interrelationship between the subjective score and objective level
Results of multiple regression analysis
| Model | Unstandardized coefficient | Standardized coefficient | 95.0% CI for B | VIF | TOL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Standard error | β | Lower limit | Upper limit | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.655 | 1.015 | 3.600 | 0.001 | 1.575 | 5.160 | |||
| Temporal muscle activities | -0.005 | 0.022 | -0.045 | -0.240 | 0.813 | -0.051 | 0.040 | 1.329 | 0.753 |
| Masseter muscle activity | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.086 | 0.490 | 0.628 | -0.015 | 0.025 | 1.134 | 0.882 |
| Chewing time | 0.081 | 0.030 | 0.490 | 2.710 | 0.011 | 0.020 | 0.142 | 1.212 | 0.825 |
Dependent variable: subject score
Independent variables: Temporal muscle activities, Masseter muscle activities, chewing time
CI Confidence interval
VIF Variance Inflation Factor, TOL Tolerance
F = 3.00, p = 0.047, R2 = 0.2434, Adj R2 = 0.1623, DW = 2.090