Healthy Women and Men Do Not Show Differences in Tongue Strength and Regular Effort Saliva Swallows as Assessed by Piezo-Resistive Sensors: Results from a Reproducibility Study

Martinez, Gianluca; Ventura, Lucia; Cugusi, Lucia; Cadeddu, Francesca; Limoncino, Monica; Deriu, Franca; Monticone, Marco; Manca, Andrea

doi:10.1007/s00455-021-10381-6

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third study compared sensors for measuring oro-lingual pressures during speech (maximum errors of 8–16% depending on the sensor) [ 42 ]. Finally, three studies used the intraclass correlation coefficient to measure the repeatability of tongue-palatal pressure measurements (ICC ranged from 0.687 to 0.956 depending on the conditions) [ 44 , 45 , 118 ]. One study also reported a standard error of measurement of 14.2% and a minimal detectable change of 38.5% [ 118 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Oral Cavity Sensors: A Systematic Review

Bueno

Kwong

Bergmann

2023

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological advancements are enabling new applications within biomedical engineering. As a connection point between the outer environment and the human system, the oral cavity offers unique opportunities for sensing technologies. This paper systematically reviews the performance of measurement systems tested in the human oral cavity. Performance was defined by metrics related to accuracy and agreement estimation. A comprehensive search identifying human studies that reported on the accuracy or agreement of intraoral sensors found 85 research papers. Most of the literature (62%) was in dentistry, followed by neurology (21%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (12%). The remaining papers were on internal medicine, obstetrics, and aerospace medicine. Most of the studies applied force or pressure sensors (32%), while optical and image sensors were applied most widely across fields. The main challenges for future adoption include the lack of large human trials, the maturity of emerging technologies (e.g., biochemical sensors), and the absence of standardization of evaluation in specific fields. New research should aim to employ robust performance metrics to evaluate their systems and incorporate real-world evidence as part of the evaluation process. Oral cavity sensors offer the potential for applications in healthcare and wellbeing, but for many technologies, more research is needed.

show abstract