Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions
To cite this article: Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W: Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open‐mouth posture under different functional conditions Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:181–188 Structured Authors – Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W Objective – To...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2011-08, Vol.14 (3), p.181-188 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 188 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 181 |
| container_title | Orthodontics & craniofacial research |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Knösel, M Klein, S Bleckmann, A Engelke, W |
| description | To cite this article:
Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W:
Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open‐mouth posture under different functional conditions
Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:181–188
Structured
Authors – Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W
Objective – To test the null hypothesis of no significant differences in (1) the duration of the post‐deglutory, cranial tongue rest position (CTP) between different functional orofacial conditions and (2) the presence or absence of an oral screen (OS) in subjects with a habitual open‐mouth posture.
Subjects – Twenty‐nine subjects (aged 6–16; mean: 9.69 years; 13/16 girls/boys) were selected according to the inclusion criterion of a habitual, daytime open‐mouth posture.
Methods – Deglutition was screened at baseline during resting respiration using orofacial polysensography and simultaneous assessment of tongue‐to‐palate position and nasal airstream, during five functional intervals of 8 min each: F1 without instruction (RR); F2 the same, but including an oral screen (RROS); F3 with OS and the instruction to maintain a tongue‐to‐palate contact (IROS); F4 with OS and the instruction to perform tongue repositioning manoeuvres at the time of spontaneous swallowing (TRMOS); and F5 corresponds to F3 omitting OS (IR). Duration and frequency of deglutition were analysed descriptively as well as by anova and subsequent multiple comparisons, and the CTP was evaluated with chi‐square tests and paired comparisons at a significance level of 5%.
Results – Of 542 identified swallowing acts, 75% were accompanied by a post‐deglutory CTP. Mean duration of CTP increased for functional conditions RR/1.01s > RROS/2.56s > IR/3.21s > IROS/6.53s > TRMOS/6.58s. The null hypothesis (1) was rejected in comparison of resting respiration (F1, F2) with IROS and TRMOS, whereas the use of an oral screen alone did not significantly prolong the duration of CTP. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01515.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_910784375</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>878598759</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4385-c9a371168cbc333a7864622d2fea88bbbe4f83acff45d441b7ad278c25d292043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxSMEoqXlKyDfOCX4X2LnwAFWsIVWrVS14mg5zrj1ko2X2Fa33x6nKXstvng0837P8ryiQARXJJ9Pm4o0mJQN46yimJAKk5rU1f5VcXwYvD7UrD4q3oWwwZhiSpu3xRElQhAq-HERb_x4lwDtfHDR-RFpG2FCPdwNKS4dN6KQug2YGNCDi_foXncuJj0gv4Ox3PqUe5mPaQKUxn7GnbUwwRiRTaOZXbLa-LF_cgynxRurhwDvn--T4vb7t5vVWXlxtf6x-nJRGs5kXZpWM0FII01nGGNayIY3lPbUgpay6zrgVjJtrOV1zznphO6pkIbWPW0p5uyk-Lj47ib_J0GIauuCgWHQI_gUVEuwkJyJ-kWlFLJupajbrJSL0kw-hAms2k1uq6dHRbCaw1EbNe9dzRmoORz1FI7aZ_TD8yOp20J_AP-lkQWfF8GDG-Dxv43V1ep6rjJfLrwLEfYHXk-_VSPyN9Wvy7Va_7z-2pydU3XJ_gK2Sq8V</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>878598759</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Knösel, M ; Klein, S ; Bleckmann, A ; Engelke, W</creator><creatorcontrib>Knösel, M ; Klein, S ; Bleckmann, A ; Engelke, W</creatorcontrib><description>To cite this article:
Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W:
Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open‐mouth posture under different functional conditions
Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:181–188
Structured
Authors – Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W
Objective – To test the null hypothesis of no significant differences in (1) the duration of the post‐deglutory, cranial tongue rest position (CTP) between different functional orofacial conditions and (2) the presence or absence of an oral screen (OS) in subjects with a habitual open‐mouth posture.
Subjects – Twenty‐nine subjects (aged 6–16; mean: 9.69 years; 13/16 girls/boys) were selected according to the inclusion criterion of a habitual, daytime open‐mouth posture.
Methods – Deglutition was screened at baseline during resting respiration using orofacial polysensography and simultaneous assessment of tongue‐to‐palate position and nasal airstream, during five functional intervals of 8 min each: F1 without instruction (RR); F2 the same, but including an oral screen (RROS); F3 with OS and the instruction to maintain a tongue‐to‐palate contact (IROS); F4 with OS and the instruction to perform tongue repositioning manoeuvres at the time of spontaneous swallowing (TRMOS); and F5 corresponds to F3 omitting OS (IR). Duration and frequency of deglutition were analysed descriptively as well as by anova and subsequent multiple comparisons, and the CTP was evaluated with chi‐square tests and paired comparisons at a significance level of 5%.
Results – Of 542 identified swallowing acts, 75% were accompanied by a post‐deglutory CTP. Mean duration of CTP increased for functional conditions RR/1.01s > RROS/2.56s > IR/3.21s > IROS/6.53s > TRMOS/6.58s. The null hypothesis (1) was rejected in comparison of resting respiration (F1, F2) with IROS and TRMOS, whereas the use of an oral screen alone did not significantly prolong the duration of CTP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1601-6335</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1601-6343</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01515.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21771274</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Child ; Deglutition - physiology ; Dentistry ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mouth Breathing - physiopathology ; Nose - physiopathology ; open-mouth posture ; Optical Devices ; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional ; Palate - pathology ; Polysensography ; Pulmonary Ventilation - physiology ; Respiration ; Time Factors ; Tongue - pathology ; Tongue - physiopathology ; Tongue Habits ; tongue-palate contact</subject><ispartof>Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2011-08, Vol.14 (3), p.181-188</ispartof><rights>2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><rights>2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4385-c9a371168cbc333a7864622d2fea88bbbe4f83acff45d441b7ad278c25d292043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4385-c9a371168cbc333a7864622d2fea88bbbe4f83acff45d441b7ad278c25d292043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1601-6343.2011.01515.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1601-6343.2011.01515.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21771274$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Knösel, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleckmann, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelke, W</creatorcontrib><title>Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions</title><title>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</title><addtitle>Orthod Craniofac Res</addtitle><description>To cite this article:
Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W:
Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open‐mouth posture under different functional conditions
Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:181–188
Structured
Authors – Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W
Objective – To test the null hypothesis of no significant differences in (1) the duration of the post‐deglutory, cranial tongue rest position (CTP) between different functional orofacial conditions and (2) the presence or absence of an oral screen (OS) in subjects with a habitual open‐mouth posture.
Subjects – Twenty‐nine subjects (aged 6–16; mean: 9.69 years; 13/16 girls/boys) were selected according to the inclusion criterion of a habitual, daytime open‐mouth posture.
Methods – Deglutition was screened at baseline during resting respiration using orofacial polysensography and simultaneous assessment of tongue‐to‐palate position and nasal airstream, during five functional intervals of 8 min each: F1 without instruction (RR); F2 the same, but including an oral screen (RROS); F3 with OS and the instruction to maintain a tongue‐to‐palate contact (IROS); F4 with OS and the instruction to perform tongue repositioning manoeuvres at the time of spontaneous swallowing (TRMOS); and F5 corresponds to F3 omitting OS (IR). Duration and frequency of deglutition were analysed descriptively as well as by anova and subsequent multiple comparisons, and the CTP was evaluated with chi‐square tests and paired comparisons at a significance level of 5%.
Results – Of 542 identified swallowing acts, 75% were accompanied by a post‐deglutory CTP. Mean duration of CTP increased for functional conditions RR/1.01s > RROS/2.56s > IR/3.21s > IROS/6.53s > TRMOS/6.58s. The null hypothesis (1) was rejected in comparison of resting respiration (F1, F2) with IROS and TRMOS, whereas the use of an oral screen alone did not significantly prolong the duration of CTP.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Deglutition - physiology</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mouth Breathing - physiopathology</subject><subject>Nose - physiopathology</subject><subject>open-mouth posture</subject><subject>Optical Devices</subject><subject>Orthodontic Appliances, Functional</subject><subject>Palate - pathology</subject><subject>Polysensography</subject><subject>Pulmonary Ventilation - physiology</subject><subject>Respiration</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tongue - pathology</subject><subject>Tongue - physiopathology</subject><subject>Tongue Habits</subject><subject>tongue-palate contact</subject><issn>1601-6335</issn><issn>1601-6343</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxSMEoqXlKyDfOCX4X2LnwAFWsIVWrVS14mg5zrj1ko2X2Fa33x6nKXstvng0837P8ryiQARXJJ9Pm4o0mJQN46yimJAKk5rU1f5VcXwYvD7UrD4q3oWwwZhiSpu3xRElQhAq-HERb_x4lwDtfHDR-RFpG2FCPdwNKS4dN6KQug2YGNCDi_foXncuJj0gv4Ox3PqUe5mPaQKUxn7GnbUwwRiRTaOZXbLa-LF_cgynxRurhwDvn--T4vb7t5vVWXlxtf6x-nJRGs5kXZpWM0FII01nGGNayIY3lPbUgpay6zrgVjJtrOV1zznphO6pkIbWPW0p5uyk-Lj47ib_J0GIauuCgWHQI_gUVEuwkJyJ-kWlFLJupajbrJSL0kw-hAms2k1uq6dHRbCaw1EbNe9dzRmoORz1FI7aZ_TD8yOp20J_AP-lkQWfF8GDG-Dxv43V1ep6rjJfLrwLEfYHXk-_VSPyN9Wvy7Va_7z-2pydU3XJ_gK2Sq8V</recordid><startdate>201108</startdate><enddate>201108</enddate><creator>Knösel, M</creator><creator>Klein, S</creator><creator>Bleckmann, A</creator><creator>Engelke, W</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201108</creationdate><title>Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions</title><author>Knösel, M ; Klein, S ; Bleckmann, A ; Engelke, W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4385-c9a371168cbc333a7864622d2fea88bbbe4f83acff45d441b7ad278c25d292043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Deglutition - physiology</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mouth Breathing - physiopathology</topic><topic>Nose - physiopathology</topic><topic>open-mouth posture</topic><topic>Optical Devices</topic><topic>Orthodontic Appliances, Functional</topic><topic>Palate - pathology</topic><topic>Polysensography</topic><topic>Pulmonary Ventilation - physiology</topic><topic>Respiration</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tongue - pathology</topic><topic>Tongue - physiopathology</topic><topic>Tongue Habits</topic><topic>tongue-palate contact</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Knösel, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleckmann, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelke, W</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Knösel, M</au><au>Klein, S</au><au>Bleckmann, A</au><au>Engelke, W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions</atitle><jtitle>Orthodontics & craniofacial research</jtitle><addtitle>Orthod Craniofac Res</addtitle><date>2011-08</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>181-188</pages><issn>1601-6335</issn><eissn>1601-6343</eissn><abstract>To cite this article:
Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W:
Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open‐mouth posture under different functional conditions
Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:181–188
Structured
Authors – Knösel M, Klein S, Bleckmann A, Engelke W
Objective – To test the null hypothesis of no significant differences in (1) the duration of the post‐deglutory, cranial tongue rest position (CTP) between different functional orofacial conditions and (2) the presence or absence of an oral screen (OS) in subjects with a habitual open‐mouth posture.
Subjects – Twenty‐nine subjects (aged 6–16; mean: 9.69 years; 13/16 girls/boys) were selected according to the inclusion criterion of a habitual, daytime open‐mouth posture.
Methods – Deglutition was screened at baseline during resting respiration using orofacial polysensography and simultaneous assessment of tongue‐to‐palate position and nasal airstream, during five functional intervals of 8 min each: F1 without instruction (RR); F2 the same, but including an oral screen (RROS); F3 with OS and the instruction to maintain a tongue‐to‐palate contact (IROS); F4 with OS and the instruction to perform tongue repositioning manoeuvres at the time of spontaneous swallowing (TRMOS); and F5 corresponds to F3 omitting OS (IR). Duration and frequency of deglutition were analysed descriptively as well as by anova and subsequent multiple comparisons, and the CTP was evaluated with chi‐square tests and paired comparisons at a significance level of 5%.
Results – Of 542 identified swallowing acts, 75% were accompanied by a post‐deglutory CTP. Mean duration of CTP increased for functional conditions RR/1.01s > RROS/2.56s > IR/3.21s > IROS/6.53s > TRMOS/6.58s. The null hypothesis (1) was rejected in comparison of resting respiration (F1, F2) with IROS and TRMOS, whereas the use of an oral screen alone did not significantly prolong the duration of CTP.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21771274</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01515.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1601-6335 |
| ispartof | Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2011-08, Vol.14 (3), p.181-188 |
| issn | 1601-6335 1601-6343 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_910784375 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adolescent Child Deglutition - physiology Dentistry Female Humans Male Mouth Breathing - physiopathology Nose - physiopathology open-mouth posture Optical Devices Orthodontic Appliances, Functional Palate - pathology Polysensography Pulmonary Ventilation - physiology Respiration Time Factors Tongue - pathology Tongue - physiopathology Tongue Habits tongue-palate contact |
| title | Tongue position after deglutition in subjects with habitual open-mouth posture under different functional conditions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T08%3A16%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tongue%20position%20after%20deglutition%20in%20subjects%20with%20habitual%20open-mouth%20posture%20under%20different%20functional%20conditions&rft.jtitle=Orthodontics%20&%20craniofacial%20research&rft.au=Kn%C3%B6sel,%20M&rft.date=2011-08&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=181-188&rft.issn=1601-6335&rft.eissn=1601-6343&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01515.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E878598759%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=878598759&rft_id=info:pmid/21771274&rfr_iscdi=true |