质地改良饮食(TMDs)是吞咽和咀嚼障碍住院的老年患者的主要代偿治疗。然而,缺乏评估其客观质地特性的方案阻碍了其工业化和最佳患者护理。
目的:本研究旨在(a)评估纹理特性(最大力,凝聚力,和粘附性)和食品口腔加工的生物力学(咀嚼周期,时间,和频率)十个叉子可混搭的菜肴(纹理EBDA/IDDSI6级),(b)探讨口腔加工对质地的影响,和(c)测量健康成人的即吞丸剂(RSB)的性质。
方法:纹理属性(最大力,凝聚力,和粘附性)在五个健康成年人(30±3.9,3名女性)口服处理(RSB)前后,用质地分析仪分析了十个盘子。表面肌电图用于测量咀嚼周期,时间,和频率。
结果:咀嚼前纹理轮廓分析(TPA)-最大力的平均值范围为0.65至2.73N,粘结性为0.49-0.87,粘结性为0.01-0.95N·s。从整个样品到RSB的咀嚼周期(46.87-19.13MC)和时间(36.73-15.80S)在菜肴之间有很大且显着的差异,虽然频率没有(1.68-1.11MC/T)。咀嚼后RSBTPA-最大力的平均值范围为0.70至2.24N;粘结性,0.49-0.73;和粘附性,0.01-1.14牛顿·秒。
结论:尽管所有菜肴都按相同的定性描述符分类(BDA级别E/IDDSI级别6),它们的纹理特性有很大且显著的变化(最大力,凝聚力,和粘合性)以SI单位测量时。此外,在健康的成年人中,实现RSB的咀嚼周期和时间差异很大,而咀嚼频率保持相当恒定。
Texture-modified diets (TMDs) are a primary compensatory treatment for hospitalized older patients with swallowing and mastication disorders. Nevertheless, the lack of a protocol for evaluating their objective textural properties hampers their industrialization and optimal patient care.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed (a) to evaluate the textural properties (maximum force, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness) and biomechanics of food oral processing (mastication cycles, time, and frequency) of ten fork-mashable dishes (Texture E BDA/IDDSI level 6), (b) to explore the impact of oral processing on texture, and (c) to measure the properties of the ready-to-swallow bolus (RSB) in healthy adults.
METHODS: The textural properties (maximum force, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness) of ten dishes were analyzed with a texture analyzer before and after oral processing (RSB) in five healthy adults (30 ± 3.9, 3 women). Surface electromyography was used to measure mastication cycles, time, and frequency.
RESULTS: The pre-mastication Texture Profile Analysis (TPA)-averaged values of maximum force ranged from 0.65 to 2.73 N, cohesiveness was 0.49-0.87, and adhesiveness was 0.01-0.95 N·s. Masticatory Cycles (46.87-19.13 MC) and time (36.73-15.80 S) from whole samples to RSB greatly and significantly differed among dishes, although frequency did not (1.68-1.11 MC/T). Post-mastication RSB TPA-averaged values of maximum force ranged from 0.70 to 2.24 N; cohesiveness, 0.49-0.73; and adhesiveness, 0.01-1.14 N·s.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite all dishes being classified by the same qualitative descriptor (BDA level E/IDDSI level 6), there was a large and significant variation in their textural properties (maximum force, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness) when measured in SI units. In addition, in healthy adults, the masticatory cycles and time to achieve RSB greatly differed, whereas masticatory frequency remained quite constant.