4.3 Article

Tongue-Strengthening Exercises in Healthy Older Adults: Specificity of Bulb Position and Detraining Effects

Journal

DYSPHAGIA
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 337-344

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-017-9858-3

Keywords

Dysphagia; Tongue-strengthening exercises; Specificity; Bulb location

Funding

  1. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [166652/1901518N] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical tongue-strengthening therapy programs are generally based on the principles of exercise and motor learning, including the specificity paradigm. The aim of this study was to investigate the specific effect of anterior and posterior tongue-strengthening exercises (TSE) on tongue strength (TS) in healthy older adults and to measure possible detraining effects. Sixteen healthy elderly completed 8 weeks of TSE by means of the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI). They were distributed in two different treatment arms and performed either exclusively anterior or posterior TSE (ATSE, n = 9 or PTSE, n = 7) depending on the treatment arm. Anterior and posterior maximal isometric pressures (MIPA, MIPP) were measured at baseline, halfway, and after completion of the training sessions. Detraining was measured by repeating MIPA and MIPP measures 4 weeks after the last session of TSE. MIPA and MIPP increased significantly in both treatment arms. MIPA was significantly higher in the ATSE group compared to the PTSE group across all measures in time. No significant differences were observed in MIPP between the ATSE and PTSE groups. Regardless of treatment arm, there was no significant detraining effect measured 4 weeks after the last TSE session. This study suggests that TSE show partial specificity concerning bulb position. We conclude that especially anterior training results in higher anterior TS in comparison with posterior exercises. Furthermore, we found no detraining effects, independent of bulb location.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available