2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.04.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Topographic study of human tongue in relation to oral tribology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Average surface roughness parameters S a and S q were slightly higher in the case of the hydrophobic material (polyvinyl siloxane) in comparison to the hydrophilic material (alginate). Values of S a and S q reported here are larger but in the same order of magnitude of others reported elsewhere, 16 where impressions were collected in a different manner likely involving a larger pressure during the mask acquisition as compared to the current study.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Average surface roughness parameters S a and S q were slightly higher in the case of the hydrophobic material (polyvinyl siloxane) in comparison to the hydrophilic material (alginate). Values of S a and S q reported here are larger but in the same order of magnitude of others reported elsewhere, 16 where impressions were collected in a different manner likely involving a larger pressure during the mask acquisition as compared to the current study.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“… 7 10 , 15 Although advances have been made in recent years in adapting those tribological setups to the oral tribology context, true emulation of the complex anatomical features of a real tongue surface and its physical performance remains incomplete. 16 19 For instance, silicone surfaces commonly employed in combination with low working loads, typically below 5.0 N, 20 , 21 result in contact pressures above 200.0 kPa, 20 which are about 1 order of magnitude higher than the maximum pressure of the human tongue-palate interface (∼50 kPa). 22 , 23 Smooth elastomeric surfaces are generally used as the current state-of-the-art for in vitro oral tribology testing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the surface roughness of human tongue reported; approx. 90 μm (Wang, Upadhyay, & Chen, 2019) is larger than that of the geometry used, usage of this geometry has been validated previously in terms of the suitability to texture evaluation (Kim et al, 2015; Pondicherry et al, 2018). For measurements, 1 ml of each test solution was placed into the container, followed by application of the normal force at 0.3 N between the upper surface and the test solution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…A total of 15 participants (seven males and eight females, aged 21.7 ± 2.1 years) with different tongue surface roughness measurements were selected for this study (ranging from 54.6–140.0 μm). All had participated in the previous tongue topography measurement study and were familiar with the experimental procedures 22 . They had no reported oral health problems; they had not been on medication for at least 2 weeks at the time of experiment, and they were non‐smokers with no alcohol abuse history.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All had participated in the previous tongue topography measurement study and were familiar with the experimental procedures. 22 They had no reported oral health problems; they had not been on medication for at least 2 weeks at the time of experiment, and they were non-smokers with no alcohol abuse history. All participants were asked not to have food or beverages for at least 1 h before the experiment, although pure water was allowed.…”
Section: Participants Recruitmentmentioning
confidence: 99%