Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MOUTH”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
PubMed1981

Quantitative differences in volatiles from healthy mouths and mouths with periodontitis.

It has been suggested that orally derived volatile aromatic amines may be of possible diagnostic use and may contribute to the etiology or pathogenesis of periodontal disease. Using gas chromatography and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, we identified and quantitated pyridine and picolines in the headspace of incubated whole saliva from healthy and diseased subjects. The oral health of subjects was evaluated by four standard oral-health indices. Volatile aromatic amines were virtually absent from subjects with healthy oral cavities, but were present in the oral cavities of subjects with periodontitis to the extent of 636.4 (SEM 154.7) ng/5 mL of saliva. Pyridine and picolines in saliva of diseased subjects may be related to the disease process.

Humans↗
PubMed1989

Evaluation of mouth-to-mask ventilation devices.

UNLABELLED: A number of mouth-to-mask ventilation devices have become commercially available in the past several years. In this study, we compared the volumes delivered by eight of these devices to the volumes delivered by mouth-to-mouth ventilation. METHOD: Fourteen respiratory care practitioners participated in the study. Ventilation was delivered to an adult resuscitation manikin. Each subject ventilated the manikin using mouth-to-mouth technique and each of the following mouth-to-mask devices: Boehringer EVA, Hospitak, Hudson, Intertech Safe Response, Laerdal Pocket Mask, Life Design Systems (LDS), Respironics SealEasy, and Vital Signs. Evaluation periods of 1 minute were used, minute ventilation and respiratory rate were measured, and tidal volume was calculated. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the volumes delivered by the masks (p less than 0.001). The volumes delivered by each mask were less than mouth-to-mouth volumes (p less than 0.05 in each case). The mean +/- SD mouth-to-mouth volume was 1.04 +/- 0.32 L. The mean +/- SD volumes for each of the devices was 0.54 +/- 0.34 L for the EVA, 0.77 +/- 0.21 L for the Hospitak, 0.51 +/- 0.26 L for the Hudson, 0.81 +/- 0.35 L for the Safe Response, 0.65 +/- 0.25 L for the Pocket Mask, 0.82 +/- 0.27 L for the LDS, 0.79 +/- 0.32 L for the SealEasy, and 0.76 +/- 0.21 L for the Vital Signs. CONCLUSIONS: We found considerable variability between the volumes delivered with commercially available mouth-to-mask ventilation devices. Although the volumes delivered during mouth-to-mask technique were less than those delivered with mouth-to-mouth technique, the volumes delivered by some of the mouth-to-mask devices were large enough to allow them to be substituted for mouth-to-mouth technique.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2001

An observational study of object mouthing behavior by young children.

OBJECTIVE: Mouthing behavior in infants and young children <3 years old is a poorly quantified yet normal part of early childhood development. Increasingly, safety and risk assessments involving materials that may be mouthed depend on accurate estimates of oral contact time. This study reports the results of an observational study performed to investigate and obtain data on mouthing behavior of objects for children up to 3 years old. METHODOLOGY: The study used a standard diary form with instructions for participating parents to observe their child in a normal environment (primarily home), and to document both the type and duration of each item mouthed. Phase I (pilot) consisted of 30 children each observed for 1 day, divided equally between the ages of 0 to 18 months (n = 15) and 19 to 36 months (n = 15), whereas Phase II included more participants (n = 92 aged 0-18 months; n = 95 aged 19-36 months). Phase III included observations for 5 nonconsecutive days over a 2-month period on 168 children between the ages of 3 to 18 months (at study initiation), and focused on total mouthing time of objects, exclusive of pacifiers. RESULTS: The data collected during the first 2 phases were pooled and analyzed together. For all participants between the ages of 0 and 18 months (n = 107), the average daily duration of mouthing objects included: pacifiers (108 minutes), plastic toys (17 minutes), teethers (6 minutes), and other objects (9 minutes). The results for children 19 to 36 months old (n = 110) included: pacifiers (126 minutes), plastic toys (2 minutes), teethers (0 minutes), and other objects (2 minutes). Although no significant difference existed between the 2 age ranges for pacifier mouthing duration, a statistically significant difference was observed for nonpacifier objects. For Phase III, the average daily mouthing time for all objects (excluding pacifiers), based on 5 nonconsecutive days of observation for 168 children, was 36 minutes (n = 793 valid child observation days). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that mouthing behavior is dependent on age and the types of items that are mouthed. Duration of mouthing varies among children, with some consistently not mouthing any objects and with a very small number mouthing objects for >2 hours a day. The study also revealed wide variability in the types of objects mouthed, including many nontoy objects. Children mouth pacifiers significantly longer than other objects, regardless of age. Significantly increased mouthing time of all nonpacifier objects is reported for children in the 0- to 18-month range compared with the 19- to 36-month range.

Algorithms↗