Oral Dryness Examinations : Use of an Oral Moisture Checking Device and a Modified Cotton Method

Takahashi, Fumiyuki; Koji, Toshiaki; Morita, Osami

doi:10.2186/prp.5.26

Cited by 28 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the dry weight method, the moisture percentage can be calculated as follows: B/(A+B) × 100 (%), where A is the weight of the dried protein membrane and B is the weight of water. The correlation coefficient against the standard sample between the measurement value of moisture‐checking devices and the percentage of the dry weight method is 0.98. Accuracy of the value is, therefore, high with a variance of ± 0.2%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Saliva wetness testers absorb water when moisture is present in the area being measured and remain completely dry when moisture is not present in the area being measured. Dry mouth starts with drying of the surface of the lingual mucosa. Therefore, it is thought that drying of the tongue dorsum affects the result of saliva wetness testers more than the result of moisture‐checking devices, and the measurement results of the submucosal and lingual surfaces may not necessarily be correlated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, the moisture level had a significantly positive correlation with saliva wetness. There is no previous information on this relationship; however, it is reported that each result of moisture measurement corresponds to that of conventional methods. Using a moisture‐checking device, Takahashi et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moisture measurements were usually performed in the lingual and buccal mucosa because many patients complain of dry mouth in those areas. In the present study, moisture measurements were performed only in the lingual mucosa according to the results of our previous study on the relationship between the lingual and buccal moisture levels and symptoms of dry mouth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a saliva wetness tester and a moisture‐checking device in patients with maxillary obturator prostheses

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a saliva wetness tester and a moisture‐checking device in patients with maxillary obturator prostheses

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, an oral mucosal moisture value of over 30% is normal, of 29 to 30% is borderline, of 27 to 29% represents a low level of salivary secretion, 25 to 27% represents an intermediate severity of oral dryness, and 25% or less represents severe oral dryness. 12 The new oral moisture checking device (Mucus ® ) has some improved features. The sensor is movable, and the measuring pressure is about 200 g when the surface of the sensor goes down completely.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Usefulness of an Oral Moisture Checking Device (Mucus)

Takahashi

Toya

et al. 2006

Prosthodont Res. Pract.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new oral moisture checking device (Mucus ® ) has been developed that can measure oral mucosal moisture within 2 seconds. The results of this study suggest that oral mucosal moisture can be measured with the new oral moisture checking device without any inter-operator error. AbstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that may influence the results of measurements of oral mucosal moisture using the new oral moisture checking device, especially in relation to the operator and the sensor cover. Methods:Oral mucosal moisture was measured using a new oral moisture checking device (Mucus ® ). To determine the influence of the operator on the measured values by the oral moisture checking device, 5 operators measured the oral mucosal moisture in 12 subjects. The differences were analyzed using the Friedman test. To determine the influence of the sensor cover, one operator measured the oral mucosal moisture in 12 subjects using two sensor covers. The differences were analyzed by Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. Results:The result of the Friedman test revealed the absence of any significant influence of the operator on the measured values of oral mucosal moisture by the oral moisture checking device. The results of the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test revealed that the measured values of oral mucosal moisture by the measuring device differed by about 1.6 % between the two sensor covers (P<0.01). Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that oral mucosal moisture can be measured using the new oral moisture checking device without any interoperator error. However, there is some possibility of the measured values differing depending on the sensor cover used.

show abstract

A pilot clinical evaluation of oral mucosal dryness in dehydrated patients using a moisture‐checking device

Fukushima

Sano

Isozaki

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study included 30 patients (17 males and 13 females; mean age, 73.7 ± 13.1 years) who were diagnosed with dehydration based on vital signs, skin symptoms, and blood test findings by emergency medicine physicians. First, the attending physician of our department measured oral mucosal dryness. Subsequently, the emergency medicine physician blindly divided the severity of dehydration into three stages according to clinical findings and blood test results. In this study, the oral moisture‐checking device (Mucus®; Life Co., Ltd., Saitama, Japan) was used to measure the oral mucosal dryness. We examined the oral moisture level for each dehydration severity level and the correlations of each severity level of dehydration with the measured values. Spearman's correlation coefficient (Medcalc version 11.3 for Windows) was used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 indicated significant differences. Twenty‐six patients were diagnosed with dry mouth, and a moderate negative correlation was found between the severity of dehydration and oral moisture degree ( r = −0.686). The correlation coefficient for the relationship between oral moisture degree and severity of dehydration was −0.686, indicating a negative correlation ( P < .05). These results suggest that the oral mucosal dryness may be a useful index of dehydration severity.

show abstract

Oral Dryness Examinations : Use of an Oral Moisture Checking Device and a Modified Cotton Method

Abstract: An easy examination for oral dryness in dental patients is needed. This study suggested that oral dryness can be examined using either an oral moisture checking device or a modified cotton method.

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Comparison of a saliva wetness tester and a moisture‐checking device in patients with maxillary obturator prostheses

Comparison of a saliva wetness tester and a moisture‐checking device in patients with maxillary obturator prostheses

Clinical Usefulness of an Oral Moisture Checking Device (Mucus)

A pilot clinical evaluation of oral mucosal dryness in dehydrated patients using a moisture‐checking device

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About