Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes

Rosemary S A Shinkai, John P. Hatch, John E. Cornell, Chih-ko Yeh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE - The intraoral tactile sensitivity (ITS) of diabetic and nondiabetic subjects was compared. The effects of age, ethnicity, sex, and intraoral site were considered. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The sample comprised 589 participants of the Oral Health: San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. A total of 107 subjects (61.8 ± 10.0 years; 48 women, 59 men) met American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria for diabetes and 482 subjects (58.8 ± 11.1 years; 274 women, 208 men) did not. ITS was assessed with an oral microaesthesiometer with a cross-modality matching procedure. The dependent variable was the slope of the psychophysical function relating physical stimulus intensity (air pressure) and subjects' judgments of stimulus intensity. Data were analyzed using ANOVA for repeated measures with between-subject factors of age, sex, ethnicity, and diabetes and the within-subject factor of intraoral site. RESULTS - Diabetic and nondiabetic subjects showed no significant differences in ITS at any of the three test sites. European Americans demonstrated greater soft-palate sensitivity (mean ± SD 0.26 ± 0.15) compared with Mexican Americans (0.24 ± 0.16; P = 0.046). The three intraoral test sites differed in tactile sensitivity (P < 0.001); posterior tongue (0.33 ± 0.22) was most sensitive, followed by the soft palate (0.25 ± 0.15) and the anterior tongue (0.23 ± 0.13). Potentially confounding factors were not associated with ITS. CONCLUSIONS - Our results suggest that diabetes per se may not influence ITS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)869-873
Number of pages5
JournalDiabetes Care
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2004

Fingerprint

Touch
Soft Palate
Tongue
Air Pressure
Sex Factors
Age Factors
Oral Health
Longitudinal Studies
Analysis of Variance
Research Design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism

Cite this

Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes. / Shinkai, Rosemary S A; Hatch, John P.; Cornell, John E.; Yeh, Chih-ko.

In: Diabetes Care, Vol. 27, No. 4, 04.2004, p. 869-873.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shinkai, RSA, Hatch, JP, Cornell, JE & Yeh, C 2004, 'Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes', Diabetes Care, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 869-873. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.27.4.869
Shinkai, Rosemary S A ; Hatch, John P. ; Cornell, John E. ; Yeh, Chih-ko. / Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes. In: Diabetes Care. 2004 ; Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 869-873.
@article{86da200176c345469d9ddb57a262322e,
title = "Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE - The intraoral tactile sensitivity (ITS) of diabetic and nondiabetic subjects was compared. The effects of age, ethnicity, sex, and intraoral site were considered. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The sample comprised 589 participants of the Oral Health: San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. A total of 107 subjects (61.8 ± 10.0 years; 48 women, 59 men) met American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria for diabetes and 482 subjects (58.8 ± 11.1 years; 274 women, 208 men) did not. ITS was assessed with an oral microaesthesiometer with a cross-modality matching procedure. The dependent variable was the slope of the psychophysical function relating physical stimulus intensity (air pressure) and subjects' judgments of stimulus intensity. Data were analyzed using ANOVA for repeated measures with between-subject factors of age, sex, ethnicity, and diabetes and the within-subject factor of intraoral site. RESULTS - Diabetic and nondiabetic subjects showed no significant differences in ITS at any of the three test sites. European Americans demonstrated greater soft-palate sensitivity (mean ± SD 0.26 ± 0.15) compared with Mexican Americans (0.24 ± 0.16; P = 0.046). The three intraoral test sites differed in tactile sensitivity (P < 0.001); posterior tongue (0.33 ± 0.22) was most sensitive, followed by the soft palate (0.25 ± 0.15) and the anterior tongue (0.23 ± 0.13). Potentially confounding factors were not associated with ITS. CONCLUSIONS - Our results suggest that diabetes per se may not influence ITS.",
author = "Shinkai, {Rosemary S A} and Hatch, {John P.} and Cornell, {John E.} and Chih-ko Yeh",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.2337/diacare.27.4.869",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "869--873",
journal = "Diabetes Care",
issn = "1935-5548",
publisher = "American Diabetes Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intraoral Tactile Sensitivity in Adults with Diabetes

AU - Shinkai, Rosemary S A

AU - Hatch, John P.

AU - Cornell, John E.

AU - Yeh, Chih-ko

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - OBJECTIVE - The intraoral tactile sensitivity (ITS) of diabetic and nondiabetic subjects was compared. The effects of age, ethnicity, sex, and intraoral site were considered. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The sample comprised 589 participants of the Oral Health: San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. A total of 107 subjects (61.8 ± 10.0 years; 48 women, 59 men) met American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria for diabetes and 482 subjects (58.8 ± 11.1 years; 274 women, 208 men) did not. ITS was assessed with an oral microaesthesiometer with a cross-modality matching procedure. The dependent variable was the slope of the psychophysical function relating physical stimulus intensity (air pressure) and subjects' judgments of stimulus intensity. Data were analyzed using ANOVA for repeated measures with between-subject factors of age, sex, ethnicity, and diabetes and the within-subject factor of intraoral site. RESULTS - Diabetic and nondiabetic subjects showed no significant differences in ITS at any of the three test sites. European Americans demonstrated greater soft-palate sensitivity (mean ± SD 0.26 ± 0.15) compared with Mexican Americans (0.24 ± 0.16; P = 0.046). The three intraoral test sites differed in tactile sensitivity (P < 0.001); posterior tongue (0.33 ± 0.22) was most sensitive, followed by the soft palate (0.25 ± 0.15) and the anterior tongue (0.23 ± 0.13). Potentially confounding factors were not associated with ITS. CONCLUSIONS - Our results suggest that diabetes per se may not influence ITS.

AB - OBJECTIVE - The intraoral tactile sensitivity (ITS) of diabetic and nondiabetic subjects was compared. The effects of age, ethnicity, sex, and intraoral site were considered. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The sample comprised 589 participants of the Oral Health: San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. A total of 107 subjects (61.8 ± 10.0 years; 48 women, 59 men) met American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria for diabetes and 482 subjects (58.8 ± 11.1 years; 274 women, 208 men) did not. ITS was assessed with an oral microaesthesiometer with a cross-modality matching procedure. The dependent variable was the slope of the psychophysical function relating physical stimulus intensity (air pressure) and subjects' judgments of stimulus intensity. Data were analyzed using ANOVA for repeated measures with between-subject factors of age, sex, ethnicity, and diabetes and the within-subject factor of intraoral site. RESULTS - Diabetic and nondiabetic subjects showed no significant differences in ITS at any of the three test sites. European Americans demonstrated greater soft-palate sensitivity (mean ± SD 0.26 ± 0.15) compared with Mexican Americans (0.24 ± 0.16; P = 0.046). The three intraoral test sites differed in tactile sensitivity (P < 0.001); posterior tongue (0.33 ± 0.22) was most sensitive, followed by the soft palate (0.25 ± 0.15) and the anterior tongue (0.23 ± 0.13). Potentially confounding factors were not associated with ITS. CONCLUSIONS - Our results suggest that diabetes per se may not influence ITS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1842590533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1842590533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2337/diacare.27.4.869

DO - 10.2337/diacare.27.4.869

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 869

EP - 873

JO - Diabetes Care

JF - Diabetes Care

SN - 1935-5548

IS - 4

ER -