Objective: This multicenter clinical study was to assess the clinical usability of an oral moisture-checking device in detecting the dry mouth patients and evaluating the optimal measurement site. Materials and Method...Objective: This multicenter clinical study was to assess the clinical usability of an oral moisture-checking device in detecting the dry mouth patients and evaluating the optimal measurement site. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised 250 patients with dry mouth and 241 healthy volunteer subjects at 13 medical centers. This device was used to measure the moisture degrees of the lingual mucosa and the buccal mucosa. Subjective oral dryness, objective oral dryness, and saliva flow rates were also compared between the two groups. For statistical analysis, receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The moisture degree of the lingual mucosa was significantly lower in the dry mouth group (27.2 ± 4.9) than that in the healthy group (29.5 ± 3.1, AUC = 0.653). When a lingual mucosa moisture degree of 31.0 or higher was defined as normal, less than 27.0 as dry mouth, and 27.0 to less than 31.0 as borderline zone of dry mouth, both the sensitivity and the specificity for the diagnosis of dry mouth were close to 80%. Conclusion: These results suggest that the oral moisture-checking device is a usable screening device for dry mouth.展开更多
文摘Objective: This multicenter clinical study was to assess the clinical usability of an oral moisture-checking device in detecting the dry mouth patients and evaluating the optimal measurement site. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised 250 patients with dry mouth and 241 healthy volunteer subjects at 13 medical centers. This device was used to measure the moisture degrees of the lingual mucosa and the buccal mucosa. Subjective oral dryness, objective oral dryness, and saliva flow rates were also compared between the two groups. For statistical analysis, receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The moisture degree of the lingual mucosa was significantly lower in the dry mouth group (27.2 ± 4.9) than that in the healthy group (29.5 ± 3.1, AUC = 0.653). When a lingual mucosa moisture degree of 31.0 or higher was defined as normal, less than 27.0 as dry mouth, and 27.0 to less than 31.0 as borderline zone of dry mouth, both the sensitivity and the specificity for the diagnosis of dry mouth were close to 80%. Conclusion: These results suggest that the oral moisture-checking device is a usable screening device for dry mouth.
