ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Analysis of Labial and Lingual Strength among Healthy Chinese Adults in Taiwan.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of maximum tongue strength on implant stability and marginal bone loss in posterior mandibular implants: a preliminary prospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Maximum Anterior Tongue Strength and Maximum Lip Strength in Healthy Spanish Adults: A Proposal of Reference Values.Dysphagia · 2024Article
- Advancements and Challenges in Non-Invasive Sensor Technologies for Swallowing Assessment: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Age and Sex-Related Differences in the Tongue Pressure Generated during Maximum Isometric and Swallowing Tasks by Healthy Chinese Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Observational
- Assessment of muscular tone of the tongue using a digital measure spoon in a healthy population: A pilot study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study collected 11 parameters regarding the labial and lingual strength for maximum isometric and swallowing tasks among 150 healthy Chinese adults in Taiwan. Measurements were performed using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI). All of the labial and lingual strength parameters were measured three times. The maximal value of three trials represents the pressure of every parameter. The overall mean (±standard deviation) and maximum isometric pressures of the lips, anterior tongue, and posterior tongue were 24.81 ± 5.64, 55.95 ± 14.13, and 53.23 ± 12.24 kPa, respectively. The mean value of posterior tongue strength was less than that of the anterior tongue by approximately 5%. The percentages of maximum isometric tongue pressure during the swallowing of saliva and water were 85% and 80% for the anterior tongue and 90% and 81% for the posterior tongue, respectively. The average endurances for the anterior tongue and posterior tongue were 13.86 ± 7.08 and 10.06 ± 5.40 s, respectively. The maximum isometric pressures were greater than both the saliva and water swallowing pressures, and the saliva swallowing pressures were greater than the water swallowing pressures. A value of 33 kPa in maximum isometric pressure could serve as a demarcation of weak tongue strength for healthy Chinese adults. As for the repeated trials of labial and lingual strength, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the pressures obtained from the 11 labial and lingual strength parameters. The normative data can be used for the objective assessment of labial and lingual strength in healthy Chinese adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.