Validity of a visual scoring method using gummy jelly for evaluating chewing efficiency in a large‐scale epidemiological survey

Abstract

Summary Background Several methods exist for objectively evaluating chewing efficiency by using gummy jelly. However, the validity of the subjective visual evaluation of chewing efficiency has not been assessed. Objective To verify with an epidemiological study, the validity of a visual scoring method using gummy jelly by testing the relationship between masticatory performance (MP) using a fully automatic measuring system and visual score (VS) using a visual scoring method. Methods Community‐dwelling elderly individuals (n = 1234) ≥70 years old participated. One evaluator measured VS consecutively after participants chewed the gummy jelly (ie, actual‐VS). The chewed jelly was photographed. Two evaluators used the photograph to measure the gummy jelly (ie, photo‐VS). To test the validity of both methods, the correlation between actual‐VS and MP and between photo‐VS and MP were analysed. Inter‐rater reliability between the evaluators of photo‐VS was analysed. Results Significant correlations existed between actual‐VS and MP and between photo‐VS and MP (r = 0.86‐0.87; P < 0.001). The intra‐class correlation coefficient of the inter‐rater reliability for photo‐VS was very high (0.93; P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.877‐0.953); however, the distribution of photo‐VS deviated slightly from the actual‐VS. A large coefficient of variation in the MP for low VSs suggested the influence of incomplete comminution, which was not reflected by the VS, and the accidental swallowing of small pieces during chewing. Conclusion The VS deviated slightly from the MP calculated using a fully automated method; however, the VS can be utilised for epidemiological surveys with numerous participants.

The impact of a newly constructed removable denture on the objective and subjective masticatory function

“…Comparatively, the relative value of change in the masticatory performance (RVMP) is exactly the opposite of the masticatory performance value, the edentulous group demonstrated the highest improvement with a value of two times more than the pre-insertion Arare (bite-sized rice crackers) Gum Grilled meat Apple Each food item is classified according to its chewing index. 21 value, followed by the w/o PO group (21% increase), while the w/ PO group had the lowest improvement (17% increase). A significant difference was seen between the edentulous group and the w/PO group.…”

“…Several methods such as sieving [17], color-changeable chewing gum [18] and gummy jelly [19] have been used for such assessments. Notably, masticatory performance assessment by using gummy jelly [19][20][21][22][23] was widely used as a diagnostic tool due to its fast, easy and accurate application, which is beneficial in a clinical setting. However, while objective assessments evaluate the actual masticatory function, it has been stressed that subjective evaluations are also appropriate and sensitive for measuring treatment outcomes.…”

Intra‐ and inter‐investigator reliabilities of oral moisture measured using an oral moisture‐checking device

“…Although no clear evaluation criterion exists for ICC values, following the evaluation criteria of Kappa coefficient used for similar purposes an ICC of 0.81 or higher is considered close to ideal . CV and ICC (2.1) of tongue pressure measurements used for diagnosing oral hypofunction were 0.091 and 0.653, respectively, and ICC (2.1) of masticatory function evaluation, which is also used to diagnose oral hypofunction, was 0.93, suggesting that the oral moisture‐checking device is as reliable as other evaluation methods. In this study, ICC (1.1) and ICC (2.1) of measured oral mucosa moisture values were very high in both the young and older subjects.…”

Influence of simplified dietary advice combined with new complete denture fabrication on masticatory function of complete denture wearers

“…Validity and reliability of the visual scoring method have been reported, and this method is very easy to apply for evaluating shearing ability. A recent large‐scale cross‐sectional study reported that the difference between the shearing ability scores as calculated by the visual scoring method and glucose concentration method was slight; there was a significant correlation between these methods. However, in the visual scoring method, status of the gummy jelly being cracked or not crushed was evaluated as score 0; whereas the glucose concentration of these statuses was probably not the same.…”