2018
DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20182017191
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avaliação da reprodutibilidade de um instrumento para medição da força axial da língua

Abstract: RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a reprodutibilidade do Forling, instrumento portátil para medição da força axial da língua. Método Foi realizada a medição da força axial da língua de 49 participantes, 30 mulheres e 19 homens, com idades entre 18 e 25 anos por meio do Forling portátil. As medições foram realizadas em três dias com intervalos de 7±2 dias. Em cada dia, foram realizadas três coletas com duração de 7 segundos e intervalos de 1 minuto. Na análise, empregou-se coeficiente de variação, teste pareado de Wi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The maximum forces for lingual force testing ranged from 11.97 (D4-oval) to 16.32 N (E4-hemielliptical). Comparing these values to the estimated tongue pressure of 15 N, 21 , 22 , 23 the SSW and E4-oval and E4-hemielliptical samples were able to withstand lingual pressure with respective forces of 94.67, 14.63, and 16.32 N. The SSW significantly differed from PEEK, and the E4-hemielliptical sample had the highest mean maximum force among all of the fabricated PEEK specimens. The second-highest dimension, E4-oval, showed no significant difference from E3-rectangular, while the remaining dimensions stayed under the maximum force of 14.00 N. Regarding the biting force, all tested specimens, including the SSW, were already bent to 3.1 mm without reaching our estimated biting force.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The maximum forces for lingual force testing ranged from 11.97 (D4-oval) to 16.32 N (E4-hemielliptical). Comparing these values to the estimated tongue pressure of 15 N, 21 , 22 , 23 the SSW and E4-oval and E4-hemielliptical samples were able to withstand lingual pressure with respective forces of 94.67, 14.63, and 16.32 N. The SSW significantly differed from PEEK, and the E4-hemielliptical sample had the highest mean maximum force among all of the fabricated PEEK specimens. The second-highest dimension, E4-oval, showed no significant difference from E3-rectangular, while the remaining dimensions stayed under the maximum force of 14.00 N. Regarding the biting force, all tested specimens, including the SSW, were already bent to 3.1 mm without reaching our estimated biting force.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The maximum Von Mises stresses that occurred at the area of forces applied were recorded for comparison. All models were initially subjected to anteroposterior bending (10, 15, and 20 N) 23 , 24 to simulate lip and lingual forces, and any models with unacceptable Von Mises stresses were eliminated ( Fig. 2 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tasks that demand maximum force or pressure are used in research (1,2,(7)(8)(9)(10)(13)(14)(15)(16) ; because this is the best way to standardize tests across different subjects and, thus, to reduce variability so that reliable information concerning the functioning of orofacial structures can be obtained. In addition, one way to summarize the maximum force is through the average of 3 measurements (16) , as used in this study. It should be noted, however, that the forces exerted during normal functions such as mastication, deglutition (19) and speech (27) are lower.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different orofacial forces have been investigated in a number of studies, including bite force (2,(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) , tongue force (1,(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16) , cheek force (7,13,14) , and lip force (1,13,17) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, tongue strength is assessed qualitatively through the resistance protrusion task, where patients are asked to protrude their tongue and push it against the examiner's gloved finger and/or against a spatula vertically positioned a few centimeters away from the mouth (7) . Tongue strength, or force, can also be assessed by quantitative methods (8) , using instruments containing sensors that provide the value of the force exerted by the tongue against a surface. There are also instruments that provide the value of the pressure exerted by the tongue (3) , with pressure defined as the force exerted in a given direction per unit area (9) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%