4.3 Article

What Type of Food Can Older Adults Masticate?: Evaluation of Mastication Performance Using Color-Changeable Chewing Gum

期刊

DYSPHAGIA
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 636-643

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-017-9807-1

关键词

Deglutition; Masticatory performance; Food bolus; Color-changeable chewing gum

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [24700559]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24700559] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study determines if older adults can masticate regular foods via a simple test conducted using a color-changeable chewing gum. Seventy-nine consecutive inpatients of our clinic receiving rehabilitation and general medicine were assessed for eligibility. The inclusion criterion was > 65 years. Thirty patients consented to participate. The main outcome variable was the food bolus texture at the swallowing threshold for five regular foods. The main explanatory variable was the a* value of the color-changeable chewing gum after 120 s of chewing (a* represents the degree of color between red and green, and a positive a* value indicates red). The mean age +/- standard deviation of the participants was 81.6 +/- 8.6 years, and 40% were men. Participants being able to prepare the food with suitable texture for swallowing was positively associated with the a* values in boiled rice, ginger-fried pork loin, boiled fish-paste, and rice cracker (Crude OR 1.18, 1.15, 1.17, and 1.50; P < 0.001, = 0.026, < 0.001, and < 0.001, respectively). The cut-off a* values had markedly high specificities (1.0) for boiled rice and boiled fish-paste and high sensitivities (0.86-0.94) for three foods, except boiled rice. We believe that mastication evaluation using the color-changeable chewing gum is not only useful but also extremely practical, even for older adults in a wide range of settings, including an individual's home. This approach would lead to a reduction in unnecessary mechanically altered or pureed food for older adults who can eat pureed food and safely provide palatable food.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据