Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Barros, Thaynã Aguiar
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
Texto Completo: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19101
Resumo: ntroduction: Chewing is considered one of the most important functions in the Stomatognathic System. Patients rarely come to a speech language pathologist with chewing-related complains and through a detailed evaluation it is possible to have a precise diagnosis. In the chewing evaluation we have to acknowledge several steps such as: food grasping, mouth closure while chewing bolus, vertical and lateral jaw movements, rhythm, speed, among other aspects, especially the kind of food used in evaluation. In the orofacial motricity field there are various assessment tools, however two of them emerge for being used frequently in therapy and in researches. Purpose: to compare the chewing evaluation findings in a teenager group according to the Expanded protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation (OMES-E) protocol and the Orofacial myofunctional evaluation – Marchesan, Barretin-Felix, Genaro, Rehder (MBGR). Methods: the sample was composed of 46 teenagers, 30 female and 16 male, between 11 and 16 years old, and the average age was 14.8 years. The assessment tools were used only the part referring to chewing. A wafer cookie was used for the OMES-E protocol and a roll was chosen for the MBGR. Moreover, the chewing times were analyzed for each assessment tool. The collected data from both evaluation tools were submitted to the comparative statistical analysis. Results: the evaluation tools have been shown similar to assess chewing, although they had inverted punctuations comparing to the normal parameters. The item “others” on the OMES-E corresponded to the uncoordinated jaw movements, head movements or movements from other parts of the body, inadequate posture, and food escape. On the MBGR this same item corresponded to lips closure, speed, noisy chewing, and nonintended muscular contractions; and those results showed a statistical significance. The data has also shown differences related to chewing time. Chewing a roll took almost double the time comparing to a wafer cookie. Conclusion: comparing the chewing of the teenage group studied according to the OMES-E and the MBGR, in the aspects such as bite, and type and way, they responded similarly, although they responded differently in other chewing aspects such as: posture, jaw movements, food escape, lips closure, speed, noise, muscular contraction, and time. In comparison, the roll took almost double the time comparing to the wafer cookie although it did not change the biting pattern or the type and way of chewing overall according to both evaluation protocols
id PUC_SP-1_11b5e4839ad2d75bcec9f01e5278e26b
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.pucsp.br:handle/19101
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-1
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
repository_id_str
spelling Andrada e Silva, Marta Assumpção dehttp://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4906964E1Barros, Thaynã Aguiar2016-09-27T19:37:30Z2016-05-31Barros, Thaynã Aguiar. Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos. 2016. 47 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Fonoaudiologia) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016.https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19101ntroduction: Chewing is considered one of the most important functions in the Stomatognathic System. Patients rarely come to a speech language pathologist with chewing-related complains and through a detailed evaluation it is possible to have a precise diagnosis. In the chewing evaluation we have to acknowledge several steps such as: food grasping, mouth closure while chewing bolus, vertical and lateral jaw movements, rhythm, speed, among other aspects, especially the kind of food used in evaluation. In the orofacial motricity field there are various assessment tools, however two of them emerge for being used frequently in therapy and in researches. Purpose: to compare the chewing evaluation findings in a teenager group according to the Expanded protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation (OMES-E) protocol and the Orofacial myofunctional evaluation – Marchesan, Barretin-Felix, Genaro, Rehder (MBGR). Methods: the sample was composed of 46 teenagers, 30 female and 16 male, between 11 and 16 years old, and the average age was 14.8 years. The assessment tools were used only the part referring to chewing. A wafer cookie was used for the OMES-E protocol and a roll was chosen for the MBGR. Moreover, the chewing times were analyzed for each assessment tool. The collected data from both evaluation tools were submitted to the comparative statistical analysis. Results: the evaluation tools have been shown similar to assess chewing, although they had inverted punctuations comparing to the normal parameters. The item “others” on the OMES-E corresponded to the uncoordinated jaw movements, head movements or movements from other parts of the body, inadequate posture, and food escape. On the MBGR this same item corresponded to lips closure, speed, noisy chewing, and nonintended muscular contractions; and those results showed a statistical significance. The data has also shown differences related to chewing time. Chewing a roll took almost double the time comparing to a wafer cookie. Conclusion: comparing the chewing of the teenage group studied according to the OMES-E and the MBGR, in the aspects such as bite, and type and way, they responded similarly, although they responded differently in other chewing aspects such as: posture, jaw movements, food escape, lips closure, speed, noise, muscular contraction, and time. In comparison, the roll took almost double the time comparing to the wafer cookie although it did not change the biting pattern or the type and way of chewing overall according to both evaluation protocolsINTRODUÇÃO: a mastigação é considerada uma das funções mais importantes do sistema estomatognático. Raramente os pacientes chegam ao fonoaudiólogo com queixas referentes à mastigação, e é por meio de uma avaliação criteriosa que se chega a um diagnóstico preciso. Na avaliação da mastigação temos que considerar várias etapas, como apreensão do alimento durante a mastigação do bolo alimentar, o fechamento labial, a movimentação vertical e lateral da mandíbula, o ritmo, a velocidade, entre outros aspectos, principalmente a característica do alimento utilizado na avaliação. No campo da motricidade orofacial existem vários instrumentos de avaliação, mas dois deles se destacam por serem muito utilizados na clínica e nas pesquisas. OBJETIVO: comparar os achados da avaliação da mastigação em um grupo de adolescentes segundo o Protocolo de Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial com Escores Expandidos (AMIOFE-E) e o Protocolo de Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial – Marchesan, Barretin-Félix, Genaro, Rehder (MBGR). MÉTODO: a amostra foi composta por 46 adolescentes, 30 do sexo feminino e 16 do masculino, na faixa etária entre 11 e 16 anos, com média de idade de 14,8 anos. Foram utilizados, dos instrumentos AMIOFE-E e MBGR, apenas a parte referente à mastigação. Para o primeiro, o alimento utilizado foi o biscoito wafer, e para o segundo, o pão francês. Também para cada instrumento foram comparados os tempos de mastigação. Os dados coletados dos dois instrumentos foram submetidos à análise estatística comparativa. RESULTADOS: os instrumentos mostram-se similares para avaliar a mastigação, embora tenham pontuações invertidas em relação à normalidade. No item outros, que no AMIOFE-E correspondia a movimentos incoordenados de mandíbula, movimentos da cabeça ou de outras partes do corpo, postura inadequada, escape de alimento, no MBGR correspondeu a fechamento labial, velocidade, mastigação ruidosa, contrações musculares não esperadas os resultados apresentaram significância estatística. Os dados também, se mostraram diferentes em relação ao tempo de mastigação. A mastigação com o pão francês levou praticamente o dobro do tempo na comparação com o biscoito wafer. CONCLUSÃO: na comparação da mastigação do grupo de adolescentes estudado segundo os instrumentos AMIOFE-E e do MBGR responderam de forma similar nos aspectos referentes à mordida e ao tipo e modo, mas foram diferentes em relação aos outros aspectos da mastigação como postura, movimentos da mandíbula, escape de alimento, fechamento labial, velocidade, presença de ruído, contração muscular e tempo. Na comparação, o pão francês levou praticamente o dobro do tempo do biscoito wafer, embora não tenha modificado o padrão da mordida e nem o tipo e modo de mastigação de maneira geral segundo os dois protocolos de avaliaçãoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnologiaapplication/pdfhttp://tede2.pucsp.br/tede/retrieve/39793/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf.jpgporPontifícia Universidade Católica de São PauloPrograma de Estudos Pós-Graduados em FonoaudiologiaPUC-SPBrasilFaculdade de Ciências Humanas e da SaúdeMandíbulaMastigaçãoAvaliação Miofuncional OrofacialJawMasticationRating Myofunctional OrofacialCNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FONOAUDIOLOGIAMastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentosMastication: evaluation using two diferente toolsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SPinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPTEXTThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdf.txtThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain82074https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/4/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf.txtb59ca0aa546a21477478e6b6d8241cb9MD54LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82165https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/1/license.txtbd3efa91386c1718a7f26a329fdcb468MD51ORIGINALThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdfThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdfapplication/pdf582620https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/2/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdfc4765201c3150ba0df7cabd04e4c258cMD52THUMBNAILThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdf.jpgThaynã Aguiar Barros.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg1943https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/3/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf.jpgcc73c4c239a4c332d642ba1e7c7a9fb2MD53handle/191012022-04-28 16:49:03.463oai:repositorio.pucsp.br: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Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttps://sapientia.pucsp.br/https://sapientia.pucsp.br/oai/requestbngkatende@pucsp.br||rapassi@pucsp.bropendoar:2022-04-28T19:49:03Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv Mastication: evaluation using two diferente tools
title Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
spellingShingle Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
Barros, Thaynã Aguiar
Mandíbula
Mastigação
Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial
Jaw
Mastication
Rating Myofunctional Orofacial
CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FONOAUDIOLOGIA
title_short Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
title_full Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
title_fullStr Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
title_full_unstemmed Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
title_sort Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos
author Barros, Thaynã Aguiar
author_facet Barros, Thaynã Aguiar
author_role author
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Andrada e Silva, Marta Assumpção de
dc.contributor.authorLattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4906964E1
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Barros, Thaynã Aguiar
contributor_str_mv Andrada e Silva, Marta Assumpção de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Mandíbula
Mastigação
Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial
topic Mandíbula
Mastigação
Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial
Jaw
Mastication
Rating Myofunctional Orofacial
CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FONOAUDIOLOGIA
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Jaw
Mastication
Rating Myofunctional Orofacial
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FONOAUDIOLOGIA
description ntroduction: Chewing is considered one of the most important functions in the Stomatognathic System. Patients rarely come to a speech language pathologist with chewing-related complains and through a detailed evaluation it is possible to have a precise diagnosis. In the chewing evaluation we have to acknowledge several steps such as: food grasping, mouth closure while chewing bolus, vertical and lateral jaw movements, rhythm, speed, among other aspects, especially the kind of food used in evaluation. In the orofacial motricity field there are various assessment tools, however two of them emerge for being used frequently in therapy and in researches. Purpose: to compare the chewing evaluation findings in a teenager group according to the Expanded protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation (OMES-E) protocol and the Orofacial myofunctional evaluation – Marchesan, Barretin-Felix, Genaro, Rehder (MBGR). Methods: the sample was composed of 46 teenagers, 30 female and 16 male, between 11 and 16 years old, and the average age was 14.8 years. The assessment tools were used only the part referring to chewing. A wafer cookie was used for the OMES-E protocol and a roll was chosen for the MBGR. Moreover, the chewing times were analyzed for each assessment tool. The collected data from both evaluation tools were submitted to the comparative statistical analysis. Results: the evaluation tools have been shown similar to assess chewing, although they had inverted punctuations comparing to the normal parameters. The item “others” on the OMES-E corresponded to the uncoordinated jaw movements, head movements or movements from other parts of the body, inadequate posture, and food escape. On the MBGR this same item corresponded to lips closure, speed, noisy chewing, and nonintended muscular contractions; and those results showed a statistical significance. The data has also shown differences related to chewing time. Chewing a roll took almost double the time comparing to a wafer cookie. Conclusion: comparing the chewing of the teenage group studied according to the OMES-E and the MBGR, in the aspects such as bite, and type and way, they responded similarly, although they responded differently in other chewing aspects such as: posture, jaw movements, food escape, lips closure, speed, noise, muscular contraction, and time. In comparison, the roll took almost double the time comparing to the wafer cookie although it did not change the biting pattern or the type and way of chewing overall according to both evaluation protocols
publishDate 2016
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2016-09-27T19:37:30Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2016-05-31
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv Barros, Thaynã Aguiar. Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos. 2016. 47 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Fonoaudiologia) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016.
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19101
identifier_str_mv Barros, Thaynã Aguiar. Mastigação: avaliação com dois diferentes instrumentos. 2016. 47 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Fonoaudiologia) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016.
url https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19101
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv PUC-SP
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv Brasil
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e da Saúde
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
collection Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/4/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf.txt
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/1/license.txt
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/2/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/19101/3/Thayn%c3%a3%20Aguiar%20Barros.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv b59ca0aa546a21477478e6b6d8241cb9
bd3efa91386c1718a7f26a329fdcb468
c4765201c3150ba0df7cabd04e4c258c
cc73c4c239a4c332d642ba1e7c7a9fb2
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bngkatende@pucsp.br||rapassi@pucsp.br
_version_ 1809277859510878208