Background A functional definition of ankyloglossia has been based on assessment of tongue mobility using the tongue range of motion ratio (TRMR) with the tongue tip extended towards the incisive papilla (TIP). Whereas this measurement has been helpful in assessing for variations in the mobility of the anterior one‐third of the tongue (tongue tip and apex), it may be insufficient to adequately assess the mobility of the posterior two‐thirds body of the tongue. A commonly used modification is to assess TRMR while the tongue is held in suction against the roof of the mouth in lingual‐palatal suction (LPS). Objective This study aims to explore the utility and normative values of TRMR‐LPS as an adjunct to functional assessment of tongue mobility using TRMR‐TIP. Study Design Cross‐sectional cohort study of 611 subjects (ages: 3‐83 years) from the general population. Methods Measurements of tongue mobility using TRMR were performed with TIP and LPS functional movements. Objective TRMR measurements were compared with subjective self‐assessment of resting tongue position, ease or difficulty elevating the tongue tip to the palate, and ease or difficulty elevating the tongue body to the palate. Results There was a statistically significant association between the objective measures of TRMR‐TIP and TRMR‐LPS and subjective reports of tongue mobility. LPS measurements were much more highly correlated with differences in elevating the posterior body of the tongue as compared to TIP measurements (R2 0.31 vs 0.05, P < .0001). Conclusions This study validates the TRMR‐LPS as a useful functional metric for assessment of posterior tongue mobility.
Objectives: Subjective assessment of nasal obstruction with patient-reported outcome measures such as visual analogue scale and NOSE score may be limited in chronic mouth breathing subjects who are not consciously aware of nasal breathing difficulties. This study investigates a simple objective screening tool to assess the capacity for comfortable nasal breathing that is based on sealing the lips and mouth with tape and assessing whether the subject can breathe comfortably through the nose for up to three minutes. Method: Cross-sectional, multi-center cohort study with 663 participants (ages: 3-83 years, 50.5% female). Lips were gently sealed using MicroPore paper tape; timer was used to assess how long the participants were able to breathe comfortably through the nose for up to 180 seconds. Other measures included subjective rating of perceived difficulty with nasal breathing (VAS, 0-100) as well as self-assessed reports of mouth breathing. Results: There were 9.3% of patients with subjective reports of moderate to severe nasal obstruction (VAS> 50) and 17.2% of patients with predominance of self-reported mouth breathing in this series. Overall, 93.4% of participants successfully passed the nasal breathing test. Among patients with habitual mouth breathing, 83.5% (91/109) were able to breathe comfortably through the nose when instructed to do so for the entire 3-minute duration tested. Similarly, there were 67% (40/59) patients with VAS score >50 who could breathe comfortably through the nose for >180 seconds despite subjective reports of moderate to severe nasal obstruction. Participants unable to breathe exclusively through the nose for 180 seconds had increased likelihood of mouth breathing while awake (OR 4.12, 95% confidence interval 2.14-7.89, p<.0001) as well as increased odds of mouth breathing while asleep (OR 3.05, 95% confidence interval 1.61-5.72, p=0.0003). Conclusion: Objectively testing whether a subject can breathe through the nose with the lips and mouth taped for three minutes can identify patients at risk of mouth breathing and is a simple and effecting screening tool to distinguish organic nasal obstruction from functional mouth breathing habit and or nasal resistance.
Background: Few studies have validated when an athlete can safely return to sports, and even fewer have identified when he or she no longer requires physical therapy after surgery. Discontinuing physical therapy is often dictated by insurance restrictions, but most studies have suggested that the decision should be multifactorial, stemming from patient-derived subjective outcome questionnaires, clinical examination, and isokinetic and functional testing. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to establish discriminant validity and reliability of an objective physical therapy clearance (PTC) test in a clinical setting. The hypotheses were that the PTC test (1) will demonstrate different scores between normal and postoperative cohorts and (2) will have acceptable inter- and intraobserver reliability. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Four cohorts (27 total participants; age range, 12-18 years) underwent the PTC test: 9 adolescents 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, 4 adolescents 6 weeks after partial meniscectomy, 5 adolescents with nonstructural knee pain, and 9 control/healthy participants without any lower extremity complaint. The PTC test included a dynamic warm-up, objective measures (knee range of motion, thigh girth, and muscle motor tone), functional strength tests (heel raises, single-leg dips, hop tests, tuck jumps), and agility tests (shuffle and sprint T-test). Each testing session was videotaped and scored live by the physical therapist administering the test, and then scored via the video recording by an independent physical therapist and 2 orthopaedic surgeons. Results: The PTC test was found to have discriminant validity between the control cohort and both cohorts with previous surgery. The single-leg dip, single-leg hop, and vertical tuck jump were the most discriminatory components. The PTC test had moderate to almost perfect intrarater reliability (κ = 0.57-1), but only fair to moderate interrater reliability among video graders (κ = 0.29-0.58) and slight to substantial reliability between video graders and the live PT rater (κ = 0.19-0.63). Conclusion: The PTC test was found to have moderate inter- and intraobserver agreement, with the ability to discriminate between postoperative and control patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.