Search for


TEXT SIZE

search for



CrossRef (0)
Salivary Flow According to Elderly's Whole Health and Oral Health Status: According to Application of Oral exercise and Salivary Gland Massage
Biomed Sci Letters 2019;25:218-226
Published online September 30, 2019;  https://doi.org/10.15616/BSL.2019.25.3.218
© 2019 The Korean Society For Biomedical Laboratory Sciences.

Ji-Young Oh1,*, Eun-Mi Noh2,**, Hye-Young Park1,*, Min-Kyung Lee1,** and Hye-Jin Kim1,†,**

1Department of Biomedical Health Science, Dong-eui University, Busan 47340, Korea
2Department of Dental Hygiene, Choonhae College of Health Sciences, Ulsan 44965, Korea
Correspondence to: Hye-Jin Kim. Department of Biomedical Health Science, Dong-eui University, Busan 47340, Korea.
Tel: +82-10-8576-2546, Fax: +82-0505-182-6878, e-mail: khj1126@deu.ac.kr
*Graduate student, **Professor.
Received July 18, 2019; Revised September 11, 2019; Accepted September 16, 2019.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Abstract
In old age, measures to cope with the natural phenomenon of aging and various diseases of the elderly due to the deterioration of physical function are also a challenge for this society. While interest in systematic health is increasing, it is true that awareness and interest in oral-related diseases is relatively lacking. This study aims to present basic data necessary to improve the quality of life for senior citizens aged 65 or older by improving the oral dryness caused by systemic health. By research method, improve oral dryness caused by whole-body health with the elderly over 65 and promote their oral health, inducing the increase of the salivary flow rate through oral health care education, oral exercise, and salivary gland massage. First, on the DMSQ according to the general characteristics of the elderly, the recognition of the whole body and oral health status, independent sample t-test and One-way ANOVA were conducted. Second, on changes in the salivary flow rate and saliva pH according to the general characteristics of the elderly, recognition of oral and whole-body health status, and whole-body health, paired samples t-test was conducted. Studies have shown that salivary gland flow increased significantly after oral exercise and salivary gland massage, the salivary flow rate significantly increased. In all variables of the recognition of the oral health status, the salivary flow rate increased after oral exercise and salivary gland massage, and in the whole-body health, regardless of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, and osteoporosis, the salivary flow rate increased after oral exercise and salivary gland massage, and the salivary flow rate increased after oral exercise and salivary gland massage if the subjects responded that they did not have thyroid abnormality, anemia, abnormalities of breathing, hypotension, gastrointestinal disturbance, or kidney diseases. As a comprehensive analysis of this study, many felt oral dryness when they had a problem with the whole-body health, and many felt oral dryness when they had a problem with oral health cognition. After applying oral exercise and salivary gland massage as intervention methods in the oral health care for the elderly, the salivary flow rate significantly increased, and it is judged that the methods were very effective for controlling oral dryness. Furthermore, it is judged that the factors affecting oral health, whole-body health, and oral dryness would be identified, which would be helpful for the promotion of whole-body health and oral health. It is judged that continuous research would be needed so that measures for the application of the oral care program and system for the elderly would be prepared in the future.
Keywords : Elderly, Oral dryness, Salivary massage, Whole body health, Three-dimensional massage
꽌 濡

湲됯꺽븳 寃쎌젣꽦옣怨 궛뾽솕쓽 쁺뼢쑝濡 깮솢닔以씠 뼢긽릺怨, 쓽猷뚭린닠쓽 諛쒕떖 諛 쓽猷뚯꽌鍮꾩뒪 솗 벑쑝濡 룊洹좎닔紐낆씠 怨꾩냽 뒛뼱굹 씠젣 슦由щ굹씪쓽 湲곕닔紐낆 빟 83꽭씠떎(KOSIS, 2013; Kim, 2015). 끂뀈湲곗뿉뒗 끂솕쓽 옄뿰쁽긽쑝濡 떊泥댁쟻 湲곕뒫媛먰눜 벑쑝濡 怨좊졊솕 궗쉶뿉 닔諛섎릺뒗 끂씤뱾쓽 떎뼇븳 吏덈퀝뿉 븳 梨낆씠 씠 궗쉶쓽 떦硫닿낵젣씠湲곕룄 븯떎. 쟾떊嫄닿컯뿉 븳 愿떖 利앷븯怨 엳쑝굹 긽쟻쑝濡 援ш컯愿젴 吏덊솚뿉 븳 씤떇怨 愿떖씠 遺議깊븳 寃껋씠 쁽떎씠怨 씠윭븳 遺遺꾩쓣 빐寃고븯湲 쐞빐꽑 떎뼇븳 援먯쑁봽濡쒓렇옩 媛쒕컻씠 븘슂븯떎.

留 65꽭 씠긽쓽 끂씤 씤援ъ뿉꽌 臾몄젣媛 諛쒖깮븯뒗 二쇰맂 슂씤쑝濡 빟 30%瑜 李⑥븯뒗 援ш컯吏덊솚 援ш컯嫄댁“利앹씠떎(Kim, 2010). 援ш컯嫄댁“利앹씠 二쇨쟻쑝濡 엯븞씠 留덈Ⅴ뒗 뒓굦씠硫 떎뼇븳 슂씤뿉 쓽빐 쑀諛쒕릺뒗 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 媛먯냼븯뒗 쁽긽씠떎. 삉뒗 援ш컯嫄댁“, 援 샇씉 벑쑝濡쒕룄 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 뒓굜 닔 엳쑝硫(Fox et al., 1985) 씠뒗 援ш컯嫄댁“利앹뿉 븳 二쇨쟻씤 利앹긽씠떎(Nederfors et al., 1997; Rayman et al., 2011). 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 끂솕, 쟾떊吏덊솚怨 愿젴븳 빟臾쇰났슜뿉 쓽븳 遺옉슜, 눥洹몃젋 利앺썑援, 援ш컯吏덊솚 諛 쟾떊嫄닿컯, 몢寃쎈 諛⑹궗꽑 슂踰, 떖由ъ쟻씤 슂냼 벑怨 愿젴씠 엳떎. 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 옄泥대줈 씤븯뿬 諛쒖쓬옣븷肉먮쭔 븘땲씪 뿰븯 怨ㅻ, 異⑹튂(移섏븘슦떇利) 諛 뭾移(移섏<뿼)쓽 諛쒖깮利앷 븙솕, 援ш컯 怨고뙜씠 媛먯뿼, 넻利, 援ъ랬, 誘멸컖(엯留) 씠긽, 援ш컯沅ㅼ뼇怨 媛숈 援ш컯吏덊솚쓽 諛쒖깮뿉룄 쁺뼢쓣 誘몄튇떎(Fox et al., 1985; Kim, 2010; Rayman et al., 2011). 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 셿솕떆궎湲 쐞븳 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 援ш컯嫄댁“利 移섎즺젣濡 留롮씠 궗슜릺뒗 븘濡쒖뭡, 븸꽑쓣 옄洹뱁븯뒗 엯泥댁“ 벑 떎뼇븳 諛⑸쾿씠 뿰援щ릺怨 엳떎.

씠뿉 蹂 뿰援ъ뿉꽌뒗, 留 65꽭 씠긽 끂씤쓣 긽쑝濡 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨 쟾떊嫄닿컯怨쇱쓽 愿怨꾩뿉 븯뿬 븣븘蹂닿퀬옄 븯쑝硫, 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 媛쒖꽑븯뿬 援ш컯嫄닿컯쓣 利앹쭊떆궎湲 쐞븳 援ш컯嫄닿컯愿由ш탳쑁怨 엯泥댁“ 諛 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 궗슜븯뿬 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH 蹂솕뿉 誘몄튂뒗 쁺뼢뿉 븯뿬 寃利앺븯怨좎옄 븳떎.

뿰援 긽 諛 諛⑸쾿

뿰援 긽

B떆뿉 嫄곗<븯硫 蹂 뿰援щぉ쟻쓣 씠빐븯怨 꽕臾몄뿉 룞쓽瑜 븳 65꽭 씠긽 끂씤 65紐낆쓣 긽쑝濡 꽕臾몄“궗 븸쑀異쒕웾, 븸 pH瑜 痢≪젙븯怨, 엯泥댁“, 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 썑 븸쑀異쒕웾怨 븸 pH 蹂솕瑜 議곗궗븯떎.

뿰援щ갑踰

뿰援щ뒗 뿰援 긽옄쓽 쑄由ъ쟻 蹂댄샇瑜 쐞빐 룞쓽븰援 깮紐낆쑄由ъ쐞썝쉶(IRB 듅씤踰덊샇: DIRB-201802-HR-E-001)쓽 듅씤쓣 諛쏄퀬 쑄由ъ쟻 痢〓㈃쓣 怨좊젮븯뿬 꽕臾몄“궗 쟾 뿰援ъ쓽 紐⑹쟻怨 諛⑸쾿, 뿰援 李몄뿬뿉 븳 씡紐낆꽦 蹂댁옣, 옄諛쒖쟻씤 뿰援 李몄뿬, 룞쓽 嫄곕, 諛쒖깮 媛뒫븳 씠씡怨 遺덉씠씡쓣 룷븿븯뒗 궡슜쓣 룷븿븳 媛꾨떒븳 꽕紐낃낵 援ш컯愿由 봽濡쒓렇옩뿉 愿빐 異⑸텇엳 꽕紐낇븯怨 룞쓽瑜 援ы븳 궗엺쓣 뿰援 긽옄濡 븯떎.

뿰援ъ꽕怨: 蹂 뿰援щ뒗 留 65꽭 씠긽 끂씤 긽쑝濡 쟾떊嫄닿컯쑝濡 씤븳 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 媛쒖꽑븯뿬 끂씤쓽 궣쓽 吏덉쓣 넂씠뒗뜲 븘슂븳 湲곗큹 옄猷뚮 젣떆븯뒗뜲 엳떎. 援ш컯愿由 봽濡쒓렇옩쓣 留ㅼ< 1쉶 珥 4쉶 슫쁺븯쑝硫 留ㅼ< 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 援먯쑁 · 닔뻾 · 젏寃븯뿬 援먯쑁 쟾怨 썑쓽 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH 蹂솕瑜 뙆븙븯湲 쐞븯뿬 떎쓬怨 媛숈씠 뿰援щえ삎(Fig. 1)쓣 援ъ꽦븯떎. 二 · 媛앷쟻 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭瑜 씪諛섏쟻씤 듅꽦, 援ш컯 諛 쟾떊嫄닿컯, 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(DMSQ), 븸쑀異쒕웾, 븸 pH 蹂닔濡 룊媛븯怨 留ㅼ< 1쉶 珥 4쉶 援ш컯嫄닿컯愿由щ 떎떆븯떎. 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 떆뻾븯뿬 븸쑀異쒕웾怨 븸 pH 蹂솕瑜 蹂닿퀬옄 븯떎.

Fig. 1.

Study model



옄猷뚯닔吏묒젅李:

(1) 씤援ъ궗쉶븰쟻 諛 援ш컯嫄닿컯 愿젴 뻾쐞 듅꽦

씪諛섏쟻 듅꽦 꽦蹂, 뿰졊, 쓬二, 씉뿰, 떊泥댄솢룞 珥 5臾명빆쓣 궗슜븯떎. 移レ넄吏 삎깭濡쒕뒗 移レ넄吏 슏닔, 移レ넄吏 諛⑸쾿, 移レ넄吏 떆湲, 떐湲 珥 4臾명빆쑝濡 궗슜븯떎. 깮솢떇뒿愿 떒쓬떇 · 泥웾 쓬猷, 吏덇린怨 뵳뵳븳 쓬떇, 媛꾩떇 珥 3臾명빆쓣 궗슜븯떎. 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏濡쒕뒗 옄뿰移 媛쒖닔, 땲 쑀臾, 移섏·移섏<뿼, 援ъ랬씤吏, 엲紐 異쒗삁, 移섏븘 넻利 珥 6臾명빆쓣 궗슜븯떎.

(2) 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭

삩紐몄뿉꽌 굹굹뒗 떊泥댁쓽 吏덈퀝쑝濡 끂씤뱾뿉寃 留롮씠 諛쒖깮릺뒗 몴쟻씤 쟾떊嫄닿컯쓣 珥 11媛쒖쓽 吏덊솚(怨좏삁븬, 떦눊, 떖삁愿, 怨⑤떎怨듭쬆, 媛묒긽꽑 씠긽, 鍮덊삁, 떖옣湲곕뒫遺쟾, 샇씉 씠긽, 삁븬, 쐞옣옣븷, 떊옣吏덊솚)쑝濡 援щ퀎븯뿬 吏덊솚씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦 泥댄겕븯룄濡 븯떎(MOHW, 2017). 빟臾쇰났슜 듅꽦 떒씪 삉뒗 以묐났 蹂듭슜씠 엳쓣 닔 엳쑝誘濡 닔湲곕줈 湲곕줉븯룄濡 븯떎.

(3) 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(DMSQ)

援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 긽옄 蹂몄씤씠 씤吏븯뒗 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭瑜 留먰븳떎. 씠(Lee et al., 2005)媛 媛쒕컻븳 二쇨쟻 援ш컯嫄댁“利 룊媛룄援щ뒗 珥 6臾명빆쑝濡 援ъ꽦븯뿬 꽕臾몄“궗瑜 떎떆븯떎. 源(Kim et al., 2014)쓽 뿰援ъ뿉꽌 쟻슜븳 諛⑸쾿쑝濡 理쒖 0젏, 理쒓퀬 10젏씠씪怨 쟻 떆媛곸쟻 긽궗泥숇룄(Visual Analogue Scale; VAS)瑜 씠슜븯떎. 긽옄媛 吏곸젒 옄떊쓽 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 젙룄瑜 몴떆븯룄濡 븯뿬 젏닔솕 븯떎. 젏닔媛 넂쓣닔濡 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯씠 떖븯떎뒗 寃껋쑝濡 빐꽍븳떎. 룄援ъ뿉 븳 떊猶곕룄뒗 Cronbach’s Alpha = .872씠뿀떎.

(4) 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH 寃궗

끂씤쓽 븸쑀異쒕웾 寃궗뒗 援ш컯愿由 봽濡쒓렇옩 留ㅼ< 1쉶 珥 4쉶 以 泥 諛⑸Ц(1二 李)怨 留덉留 諛⑸Ц떆(4二 李) 痢≪젙븯떎. (二)GC肄붾━븘쓽 Saliva-Check BUFFER 젣뭹쓣 궗슜븯뿬 옄洹밸릺뼱 遺꾨퉬맂 븸쓽 쑀異쒕웾쓣 痢≪젙븯떎. 뙆씪 셼뒪瑜 뵻뼱꽌 泥섏쓬 30珥덇컙 遺꾨퉬맂 븸 踰꾨┛ 썑 怨꾩냽 뙆씪 셼뒪瑜 뵻뼱꽌 븸쓣 遺꾨퉬떆궎怨 5遺 룞븞 梨꾩랬 슜湲곗뿉 씪젙븳 媛꾧꺽쑝濡 紐⑥ 썑 梨꾩랬 슜湲곗뿉 몴湲곕맂 늿湲덉쑝濡 븸쓽 뼇쓣 痢≪젙븳떎. 젙긽닔以쓽 븸쑀異쒕웾 5遺꾨떦 5.0 mL 씠긽씠떎. 븸 pH 寃궗뒗 援ш컯愿由 봽濡쒓렇옩 留ㅼ< 1쉶 珥 4쉶 以 泥 諛⑸Ц(1二 李)怨 留덉留 諛⑸Ц떆(4二 李) 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 닔뻾 쟾 痢≪젙븯떎. 븸 pH뒗 룞씪 젣뭹(二)GC肄붾━븘쓽 Saliva-Check BUFFER)쑝濡 痢≪젙븯떎. 梨꾩랬 슜湲곗뿉 븸쓣 諭됱뼱궦 썑 pH test strip쓣 爰쇰궡꽌 梨꾩랬븳 븸뿉 10珥덇컙 쟻떆怨, test strip쓽 깋긽쓣 솗씤븳떎. 젣뭹 븞뿉 엳뒗 pH Indicator 鍮꾧탳븯뿬 몴湲고븯떎.

遺꾩꽍諛⑸쾿

蹂 뿰援ъ쓽 옄猷 遺꾩꽍쓣 쐞빐 SPSS (ver. 25.0 for windows, IMB SPSS Statistics) 넻怨꾪봽濡쒓렇옩쓣 궗슜븯뿬 遺꾩꽍븯쑝硫, 쑀쓽닔以 0.05 씠븯뿉꽌 쑀쓽寃젙쓣 떎떆븯뿬 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븳 寃껋쑝濡 빐꽍븯떎. 끂씤쓽 씪諛섏쟻 듅꽦, 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏, 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뒗 鍮덈룄遺꾩꽍(踰붿<삎)쓣 떎떆븯뿬 鍮덈룄(N) 諛깅텇쑉(%)濡 젣떆븯떎. 끂씤쓽 씪諛섏쟻 듅꽦, 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏, 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 룆由쏀몴蹂 t-test 諛 씪썝諛곗튂 遺꾩궛遺꾩꽍(One-way ANOVA)쓣 떎떆븯떎. 끂씤쓽 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 쟾 · 썑, 씪諛섏쟻 듅꽦, 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏, 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH뒗 쓳몴蹂 t-寃利앷낵 긽愿愿怨 遺꾩꽍쓣 떎떆븯떎.

寃 怨

꽦蹂 諛 뿰졊뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛

Table 1 끂씤쓽 꽦蹂 諛 뿰졊 遺꾪룷씠떎. 꽦蹂꾩쓽 寃쎌슦 궓꽦씠 10.8%, 뿬꽦씠 89.2%떎. 뿰졊뒗 81~85꽭媛 38.5%濡 媛옣 留롮븯쑝硫, 76~80꽭媛 27.7%, 86꽭 씠긽씠 20.0%, 65~75꽭媛 13.8% 닚씠뿀쑝硫 룊洹 뿰졊 81.43꽭떎. 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(DMSQ)쓣 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵 뿰졊뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(t=3.998, P=0.012)뿉꽌 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븳 李⑥씠瑜 蹂댁떎.

Oral dryness according to sex and age N (%)

Division N (%) Oral dryness

M± SD t/F (P)
Sex Male 7 (10.8) 15.86±7.84 1.795 (.185)
Female 58 (89.2) 20.50±12.15

Age 65~75 years 9 (13.8) 14.22±8.74 3.998 (.012)
76~80 years 18 (27.7) 17.00±9.27
81~85 years 25 (38.5) 20.04±13.30
86 years 돡 13 (20.0) 29.55±8.82

Total 65 (100.0)


援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛

Table 2뒗 끂씤쓽 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 옄뿰移 媛쒖닔뒗 긽븙 룊洹 媛쒖닔媛 7.26媛, 븯븙 룊洹 媛쒖닔뒗 8.20媛쒖떎. 긽븙, 븯븙 紐⑤몢 룊洹좊낫떎 移섏븘 媛쒖닔媛 쟻 洹몃9뿉꽌 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 뒓겮뒗 寃껋쑝濡 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡쒕뒗 쑀쓽븯떎(t=3.151, P=0.002, t=2.262, P=0.027). 땲뒗 ’궗슜븯吏 븡뒗떎’媛 40.0%濡 媛옣 留롮븯쑝硫, ’쟾븙쓣 궗슜븳떎’媛 32.3%, ’렪痢≪쓣 궗슜븳떎’媛 27.7%떎. 移섏 · 移섏<뿼 쑀臾댁뿉꽌뒗 ’뾾떎’媛 70.8%떎. 援ъ랬 씤吏 쑀臾댁뿉꽌뒗 ’뾾떎’媛 86.2%떎. 엲紐 異쒗삁 쑀臾댁뿉꽌뒗 ’뾾떎’媛 80.0%떎. 移섏븘 넻利 쑀臾댁뿉꽌뒗 移섏븘 넻利앹씠 ’뾾떎’媛 78.5%떎. 끂씤쓽 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(DMSQ)쓣 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵 移섏 · 移섏<뿼怨 移섏븘 넻利 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 李⑥씠瑜 蹂댁떎. 移섏 · 移섏<뿼 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 李⑥씠뒗 移섏 · 移섏<뿼씠 ’엳떎’ 媛 25.16젏씠뿀쑝硫 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븳 李⑥씠瑜 蹂댁떎(t=7.036, P=0.010). 移섏븘 넻利 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 李⑥씠뒗 移섏븘 넻利앹씠 ’엳떎’媛 22.93젏씠뿀쑝硫 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븳 李⑥씠瑜 蹂댁떎(t=6.915, P=0.011).

Oral dryness according to oral health status

Division N (%) Oral dryness

M± SD t/F (P)
Number of teeth Maxilla 돢 7 teeth 35 (53.8) 24.00±12.97 3.151 (.002)
8 teeth 돡 30 (46.2) 15.33±8.25

Mandatory 돢 8 teeth 35 (53.8) 22.97±13.41 2.262 (.027)
9 teeth 돡 30 (46.2) 16.53±8.55

Denture All 21 (32.3) 23.48±14.23 2.235 (.116)
Part 18 (27.7) 21.06±11.19
No 26 (40.0) 16.46±9.24

Gingivitis Yes 19 (29.2) 25.16±14.27 7.036 (.010)
No 46 (70.8) 17.87±11.45

Bad breath Yes 9 (13.8) 20.44±11.24 0.365 (.548)
No 56 (86.2) 19.93±11.99

Bleeding gums Yes 13 (20.0) 26.92±16.70 10.787 (.002)
No 52 (80.0) 18.27±9.69

Toothache Yes 14 (21.5) 22.93±16.56 6.915 (.011)
No 51 (78.5) 19.20±10.19

 Total 65 (100.0)


쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛

Table 3 끂씤쓽 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 怨좏삁븬씠 63.1%, 怨⑤떎怨듭쬆씠 32.3%, 쐞옣옣븷媛 23.1%, 떦눊媛 20.0%, 떖삁愿씠 16.9%떎. 끂씤쓽 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛(DMSQ)쓣 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯吏 븡寃 굹궗쑝굹, 쟾떊嫄닿컯뿉 씠긽씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦뿉꽌 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 젏닔媛 뜑 넂寃 굹궗떎.

Oral dryness according to general health status

Division N (%) Oral dryness

M± SD t/(P)
High blood pressure Yes 41 (63.1) 20.63±11.52 0.069 (.794)
No 24 (36.9) 18.92±12.44

Diabetes Yes 13 (20.0) 27.54±12.57 1.450 (.233)
No 52 (80.0) 18.12±10.93

Cardiovascular Yes 11 (16.9) 20.64±9.05 1.516 (.223)
No 54 (83.1) 19.87±12.35

Osteoporosis Yes 21 (32.3) 23.10±12.01 0.098 (.756)
No 44 (67.7) 18.52±11.54

Thyroid abnormality Yes 3 (4.6) 27.33±2.08 3.525 (.065)
No 62 (95.4) 19.65±11.97

Anemia Yes 4 (6.2) 20.50±9.26 0.179 (.674)
No 61 (93.8) 19.97±12.01

Heart failure Yes 1 (1.5) 34.00 -
No 64 (98.5) 19.78±11.76

Respiratory disorder Yes 3 (4.6) 27.33±2.08 3.525 (.065)
No 62 (95.4) 19.65±11.97

Hypotension Yes 1 (1.5) 28.00 -
No 64 (98.5) 19.88±11.85

Gastrointestinal disorder Yes 15 (23.1) 22.40±15.42 2.954 (.091)
No 50 (76.9) 19.28±10.57

Kidney disease Yes 2 (3.1) 28.00± 0.00 3.419 (.069)
No 63 (96.9) 19.75±11.90


꽦蹂 諛 뿰졊蹂 엯泥댁“ 諛 븸꽑 留덉궗吏뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾怨 븸 pH 蹂솕

Table 4뒗 꽦蹂 諛 뿰졊뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH쓽 蹂솕瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 꽦蹂꾩쓽 寃쎌슦 궓꽦 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 쟾(M=6.36), 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 썑(M=10.36)뿉 엳뼱꽌 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뿀떎(t=-3.802, P=0.009). 뿬꽦 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 쟾(M=4.74), 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 썑(M=6.84)뿉 엳뼱꽌 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뿀떎(t=-7.431, P=0.001). 뿰졊쓽 寃쎌슦 75꽭 씠븯(P=0.018), 76~80꽭(P=0.001), 81~85꽭(P=0.001)뿉꽌 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뼱 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 슚怨쇨 엳쓬씠 솗씤릺뿀떎.

Salivary flow rate and saliva pH change according to oral exercise and salivary massage by sex and age M± SD

Division N Salivary flow rate (mL) Saliva pH


Before After t/(P) Before After t/(P)
Sex Male 7 6.36±2.97 10.36±5.23 -3.802 (.009) 7.37±0.21 7.60±0.20 -1.804 (.121)
Female 58 4.74±2.31 6.84±2.99 -7.431 (.001) 7.28±0.47 7.36±0.39 -1.226 (.225)
Age 65~75 years 9 5.44±1.91 8.56±4.12 -2.972 (.018) 7.24±0.30 7.36±0.49 -0.607 (.560)
76~80 years 18 5.36±2.29 7.69±3.56 -3.865 (.001) - 7.20±0.55 7.30±0.45 -0.848 (.408)
81~85 years 25 4.62±2.80 7.20±0.38 7.879 (.001) 7.35±0.38 7.49±0.24 -1.742 (.094)
86 years 돡 13 4.50±2.14 5.65±2.09 -1.995 (.069) 7.31±0.54 7.31±0.41 0.100 (1.00)


援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭蹂 엯泥댁“ 諛 븸꽑 留덉궗吏뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH 蹂솕

Table 5뒗 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH쓽 蹂솕瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 옄뿰移 媛쒖닔쓽 寃쎌슦 15媛쒕몃쭔(P=0.001), 15媛 씠긽(P=0.001)뿉꽌 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뿀떎. 땲쓽 寃쎌슦 쟾븙(P=0.003), 렪痢(P=0.001), 뾾쓬(P=0.001)뿉꽌 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뿀떎. 移섏 · 移섏<뿼(P=0.005, P=0.001), 援ъ랬 씤吏(P=0.001, P=0.001), 엲紐 異쒗삁(P=0.036, P=0.001), 移섏븘 넻利(P=0.015, P=0.001)쓽 쑀臾댁뿉꽌룄 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뿀떎.

Saliva flow rate and saliva pH change according to oral exercise and salivary massage by oral health status M± SD

Division N Salivary flow rate (mL) Saliva pH


Before After t/(P) Before After t/(P)
Number of teeth > 15 29 4.59±2.18 6.21±3.01 -3.576 (.001) 7.28±0.50 7.31±0.44 -0.198 (.670)
15 돡 36 5.18±2.59 8.03±3.56 -8.514 (.001) 7.29±0.42 7.44±0.32 -1.686 (.101)

Denture All 21 4.71±1.90 6.60±3.56 -3.408 (.003) 7.17±0.54 7.27±0.48 -0.879 (.390)
Part 18 4.92±2.26 7.47±3.69 -3.922 (.001) 7.32±0.54 7.46±0.35 -0.889 (.386)
No 26 5.08±2.91 7.54±3.36 -7.585 (.001) 7.35±0.27 7.42±0.30 -1.056 (.301)

Gingivitis Yes 19 4.89±3.16 6.87±4.38 -3.223 (.005) 7.32±0.37 7.28±0.48 0.262 (.797)
No 46 4.92±2.07 7.36±2.99 -7.817 (.001) 7.27±0.48 7.42±0.32 -2.213 (.032)

Bad breath Yes 9 5.28±3.06 7.83±4.93 -3.922 (.001) 7.38±0.52 7.38±0.52 -0.889 (.386)
No 56 4.86±2.32 7.12±3.17 -7.452 (.001) 7.27±0.44 7.38±0.36 -1.959 (.055)

Bleeding gums Yes 13 4.77±3.49 6.35±3.97 -2.364 (.036) 7.32±0.38 7.25±0.47 -0.249 (.616)
No 52 4.95±2.11 7.43±3.28 -2.182 (.001) 7.28±0.47 7.42±0.35 -2.182 (.034)

Toothache Yes 14 5.36±3.48 7.00±4.00 -2.799 (.015) 7.23±0.61 7.30±0.50 -0.400 (.646)
No 51 4.79±2.06 7.27±3.29 -1.837 (.001) 7.30±0.40 7.40±0.34 -1.594 (.117)


쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭蹂 엯泥댁“ 諛 븸꽑 留덉궗吏뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH 蹂솕

Table 6 끂씤쓽 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH쓽 蹂솕瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 媛묒긽꽑 씠긽씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦, 鍮덊삁씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦, 떊옣吏덊솚씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦瑜 젣쇅븯怨 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 利앷븯뿬 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯떎. 쟾떊吏덊솚 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲瑜 븸 pH뒗 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯吏 븡븯떎. 쟾떊吏덊솚씠 1媛吏 씠긽 엳뒗 寃쎌슦 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 쟾(M=4.65)蹂대떎 썑(M=6.77)媛 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 利앷븯쑝硫(t=-7.077, P=0.001), 쟾떊吏덊솚씠 뾾뒗 寃쎌슦룄 쟾(M=6.08)蹂대떎 썑(M=9.17)媛 利앷븯떎(t=-4.093, P=0.002).

Saliva flow rate and saliva pH change according to oral exercise and salivary massage by general health status M± SD

;Division N Salivary flow rate (mL) Saliva pH


Before After t/(P) Before After t/(P)
High blood pressure Yes 41 4.43±2.34 6.52±3.43 5.924 (.001) .26±0.49 .36±0.42 -1.343 (.187)
No 24 5.75±2.35 8.40±0.64 -5.634 (.001) 7.32±0.08 7.42±0.31 -0.879 (.388)

Diabetes Yes 13 5.31±2.56 7.12±3.73 2.805 (.016) .09±0.61 .20±0.48 -1.000 (.337)
No 52 4.82±2.39 7.24±3.38 -7.692 (.001) 7.43±0.39 7.43±0.34 -1.327 (.190)

Cardiovascular Yes 11 5.64±2.76 8.18±4.46 3.748 (.004) .35±0.35 .40±0.37 -0.559 (.588)
No 54 4.77±2.34 7.02±3.19 -7.189 (.001) 7.27±0.47 7.38±0.47 -1.506 (.138)

Osteoporosis Yes 21 4.86±2.36 6.88±3.32 1.087 (.001) .22±0.58 .27±0.47 0.230 (.724)
No 44 4.94±2.46 7.38±3.50 -6.761 (.001) 7.32±0.38 7.44±0.32 -1.923 (.061)

Thyroid abnormality Yes 3 4.83±1.76 8.00±1.73 2.321 (.146) .33±0.23 .47±0.23 -1.000 (.423)
No 62 4.92±2.45 7.18±3.49 -7.783 (.001) 7.28±0.46 7.38±0.39 -1.509 (.136)

Anemia Yes 4 4.00±2.20 5.63±1.70 1.809 (.168) .55±0.25 .55±0.25 -
No 61 4.98±2.43 7.32±3.49 -1.753 (.001) 7.27±0.46 7.37±0.38 -1.609 (.113)

Heart failure Yes 1 3.50 6.00 - 6.80 6.80 -
No 64 4.94±2.42 7.23±3.45 -8.006 (.001) 7.29±0.45 7.39±0.37 -1.608 (.113)

Respiratory disorder Yes 3 6.50±4.44 1.50±5.41 8.660 (.013) .33±0.23 .53±0.31 -1.732 (.225)
No 62 4.84±2.31 7.01±3.23 -7.615 (.001) 7.28±0.46 7.37±0.38 -1.457 (.150)

Hypotension Yes 1 6.50 7.00 - 7.60 7.60 -
No 64 4.89±2.42 7.22±3.45 -8.155 (.001) 7.28±0.45 7.37±0.38 -1.608 (.113)

Gastrointestinal disorder Yes 15 4.07±2.57 6.03±2.18 3.476 (.004) .32±0.31 .39±0.40 -0.580 (.571)
No 50 5.17±2.33 7.57±3.66 -7.332 (.001) 7.28±0.49 7.38±0.38 -1.495 (.141)

Kidney disease Yes 2 9.00±3.54 2.25±7.43 1.182 (.447) .60±0.00 .70±0.14 -1.000 (.500)
No 63 4.79±2.29 7.06±3.22 -7.994 (.001) 7.28±0.45 7.37±0.38 -1.556 (.125)

General health* Yes 53 4.65±2.32 6.77±3.28 7.077 (.001) .28±0.45 .37±0.39 -1.432 (.158)
No 12 6.08±2.55 9.17±3.51 -4.093 (.002) 7.30±0.46 7.43±0.32 -.722 (.486)
: Analysis was made by dividing the cases with one or more systemic diseases as ‘yes’ and those without systemic diseases as ‘no’


쟾떊嫄닿컯怨 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨쇱쓽 긽愿愿怨

Table 7 끂씤쓽 쟾떊嫄닿컯 긽깭 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨쇱쓽 긽愿愿怨꾩뿉 뵲瑜 븸쑀異쒕웾 諛 븸 pH쓽 蹂솕瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵씠떎. 븸쑀異쒕웾 蹂솕 꽦蹂(P=.035), 뿰졊(P=.036), 珥 移섏븘 媛쒖닔(P=.029) 愿怨꾧 엳뿀쑝硫 븸 pH 蹂솕뒗 븸쑀異쒕웾 蹂솕(P=.001) 愿怨꾧 엳뿀떎. 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 珥 移섏븘 媛쒖닔(P=.001) 珥 移섏븘 媛쒖닔뒗 뿰졊(P=.001)怨 愿怨꾧 엳떎怨 굹궗떎.

Relationship between general health and oral health

Division* Sex Age Systemic diseases Total tooth count Oral dryness Saliva flow rate change Saliva pH change
Sex 1
Age .010 (.938) 1
Systemic diseases .218 (.080) .249 (.045) 1
Total tooth count -.117 (.353) -.392 (.001) -.385 (.002) 1
Oral dryness .123 (.329) .424 (.000) .267 (.031) -.413 (.001) 1
Saliva flow rate change -.261 (.035) -.260 (.036) -.165 (.189) .271 (.029) -.231 (.064) 1
Saliva pH change -.097 (.440) -.108 (.391) -.038 (.764) .104 (.411) -.169 (.177) .389 (.001) 1

怨 李

쓽猷뚭린닠쓽 諛쒕떖怨 寃쎌젣꽦옣쑝濡 깮솢닔以씠 뼢긽릺硫댁꽌 룊洹좎닔紐낆씠 뿰옣릺怨 엳떎(KOSIS, 2013; Kim, 2015). 씠뿉 뵲瑜 怨좊졊솕 궗쉶媛 릺硫댁꽌 떎뼇븳 끂씤 臾몄젣媛 諛쒖깮븯怨 엳떎. 듅엳 떊泥댁쟻, 젙떊쟻, 떖由ы븰쟻쑝濡 빟븳 긽깭뿉 넃뿬 엳뒗 끂씤뿉寃뚮뒗 援ш컯嫄닿컯쓽 긽떎씠 궣뿉 留롮 쁺뼢쓣 誘몄튇떎怨 蹂닿퀬릺怨 엳떎(Cassolato and Tumbull, 2003; Jang et al., 2006). 끂씤뱾쓽 援ш컯嫄닿컯 愿젴 臾몄젣 以 쟾떊嫄닿컯쑝濡 씤븳 떎뼇븳 빟臾쇰났슜쑝濡 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 샇냼븯뒗 끂씤 씤援ш 30%濡 蹂닿퀬릺怨 엳떎(Kim, 2010). 뵲씪꽌 쟾떊嫄닿컯怨 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 愿怨꾩뿉 븯뿬 궡렣蹂닿퀬, 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 媛쒖꽑븯뿬 援ш컯嫄닿컯쓣 利앹쭊떆궎硫, 굹븘媛 援ш컯嫄닿컯愿由ш탳쑁怨 엯泥댁“ 諛 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 떆뻾븳 썑 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먭낵 븸쑀異쒕웾, 븸 pH쓽 愿怨꾩뿉 븯뿬 븣븘蹂닿퀬옄 븯떎.

蹂 뿰援ъ뿉꽌 긽옄쓽 꽦蹂꾩 궓꽦씠 7紐낆쑝濡 10.8%, 뿬꽦씠 58紐 89.2%濡 굹궗떎. 넻怨꾩껌 옄猷뚯뿉 뵲瑜대㈃ 궓꽦쓽 룊洹좎닔紐낆 78.5꽭, 뿬꽦쓽 룊洹좎닔紐낆 85.1꽭濡 궓꽦뿉 鍮꾪빐 뿬꽦뱾쓽 룊洹좎닔紐낆씠 넂 寃쏀뼢씠 엳怨 씠뒗 뿬꽦씠 寃쎈줈떦씠굹 끂씤븰 벑 떎뼇븳 怨녹뿉꽌 궗쉶솢룞쓽 李몄뿬媛 넂쓣 닔 엳떎. 議(Cho and Kim, 2012) 源(Kim et al., 2014) 벑쓽 뿰援ъ뿉꽌룄 끂씤쓽 遺遺 뿬꽦씠 넂 鍮꾩쑉쓣 李⑥븯떎.

蹂 뿰援 긽옄쓽 룊洹 뿰졊 81.43꽭씠怨 81~85꽭쓽 끂씤씠 38.5%濡 媛옣 留롮븯떎. 怨쇨굅 뿰援щ맂 끂씤 뿰졊痢듦낵 鍮꾪빐 룊洹 끂씤 뿰졊씠 젏젏 넂븘吏 寃껋쓣 븣 닔 엳떎. 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 젏닔媛 넂쓣닔濡 援ш컯씠 嫄댁“븯떎怨 뒓겮뒗 젙룄媛 넂떎뒗 寃껋쓣 쓽誘명븯硫 뿰졊씠 넂쓣닔濡 뜑 留롮씠 뒓떎怨 븯떎. 긽옄쓽 옄뿰移 룊洹 媛쒖닔뒗 긽븙씠 7.26媛, 븯븙씠 8.20媛쒖떎. 땲뒗 궗슜븯吏 븡뒗 긽옄媛 40.0%濡 媛옣 留롮븯쑝硫, 移섏 · 移섏<뿼, 援ъ랬 씤吏, 엲紐 異쒗삁, 移섏븘 넻利앹씠 ’뾾떎’씪怨 씤吏븯뒗 寃쎌슦媛 넂 쓳떟瑜좎쓣 蹂댁떎. 洹몃윭굹 蹂 뿰援ъ쓽 寃쎌슦 쟾떊嫄닿컯 諛 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭媛 굹걯吏 븡븯떎. 끂씤쓽 援ш컯嫄닿컯 긽깭씤吏뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵 移섏 · 移섏<뿼怨 移섏븘 넻利 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲씪꽌 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 쑀쓽븳 李⑥씠媛 엳뿀떎. 移섏븘 넻利 쑀臾댁뿉 뵲瑜 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 李⑥씠뒗 移섏븘 넻利앹씠 엳떎媛 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븳 李⑥씠瑜 蹂댁떎.

蹂 뿰援ъ뿉꽌 끂씤쓽 쟾떊嫄닿컯쓣 궡렣蹂댁븯쓣 븣 怨좏삁븬씠 63.1%濡 媛옣 넂 鍮꾩쑉쓣 李⑥븯怨 怨⑤떎怨듭쬆 32.3%, 쐞옣옣븷 23.1%, 떦눊 20.0%, 떖삁愿吏덊솚 16.9% 닚쑝濡 굹궗떎. Wu (Wu and Hip, 1993)뒗 쟾떊嫄닿컯씠 엳뒗 솚옄瑜 긽쑝濡 씠솚맂 쟾떊嫄닿컯쓽 醫낅쪟뒗 怨좏삁븬씠 媛옣 넂寃 굹궗怨 쐞옣옣븷 떦눊蹂 삉븳 씠솚瑜좎씠 넂븘 蹂 뿰援ъ 쑀궗븯떎. 쟾떊吏덊솚怨 빟臾쇰났슜씠 쐞뿕슂씤쑝濡 쁺뼢쓣 誘몄튇떎. 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯 옄떊씠 뒓겮뒗 二쇨쟻씤 利앹긽씠떎(Nederfors et al., 1997; Rayman et al., 2011). 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 利앹긽쓣 셿솕븯怨 삁諛 · 愿由ы븯뒗 寃껋 援ш컯 궡 · 쇅 빀蹂묒쬆쓣 媛먯냼떆궎怨 뜑 굹븘媛 궣쓽 吏덉쓣 뼢긽떆궎뒗뜲 以묒슂븳 쓽誘몃 媛吏꾨떎(Kim and Choi, 2013). 삉븳 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨 愿젴맂 쟾臾멸쓽 吏냽쟻씤 愿떖怨 끂젰씠 븘슂븯硫 끂씤쓽 쟾떊 諛 援ш컯嫄닿컯쓣 泥댄겕븯怨 援ш컯嫄댁“ 諛쒖깮슂씤쓽 愿젴꽦쓣 뙆븙븷 닔 엳뒗 쟾臾몄쟻씤 吏떇怨 뻾쐞媛 닔諛섎릺뼱빞 븷 寃껋씠떎. 끂씤쓽 뿰졊씠 넂븘吏덉닔濡 移섏븘 긽떎瑜좎씠 넂븘吏怨 옉洹쇱쓽 솢룞 젏젏 쐞異뺣릺뼱 寃곌뎅 옉湲곕뒫씠 븯맂떎. 몴쟻쑝濡 怨좊졊솕 臾몄젣뿉 吏곷㈃븳 씪蹂몄쓽 寃쎌슦 諛깆꽭援ш컯泥댁“(Lee et al., 2010)瑜 媛쒕컻븯뿬 끂씤쓽 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 셿솕뿉 湲띿젙쟻씤 뿭븷쓣 븳 궗濡媛 엳떎. 슦由щ굹씪뿉꽌룄 2009뀈 씠썑 엯泥댁“(Cho, 2009) 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 諛⑸쾿쓣 씠슜븯뿬 援ш컯嫄댁“媛 셿솕 諛 굹븘媛 援ш컯嫄닿컯湲곕뒫 쉶蹂듭쓣 쐞븳 봽濡쒓렇옩쑝濡 궗슜릺怨 엳떎. 슦由щ굹씪뿉꽌룄 2009뀈 씠썑 엯泥댁“(Cho, 2009) 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 씠슜븯뿬 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 媛쒖꽑븯뒗 諛⑸쾿쑝濡 궗슜릺怨 엳떎. 뿰援ъ옄쓽 二쇱슂븳 紐⑹쟻 쟾떊吏덊솚씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦 빟臾쇰났슜怨 븿猿 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓣 뒓겮뒗 젙룄瑜 솗씤븯怨 떎젣 븸쑀異쒕웾怨 pH瑜 寃궗븯뒗 寃껋쑝濡 以묒옱踰뺤 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏 닔뻾씠떎. 닔뻾 쟾 썑쓽 븸쑀異쒕웾怨 븸 pH 蹂솕瑜 遺꾩꽍븳 寃곌낵 꽦蹂, 뿰졊, 援ш컯 긽깭, 쟾떊嫄닿컯뿉꽌 넻怨꾩쟻쑝濡 쑀쓽븯寃 利앷릺뼱 源(Kim, 2011)怨 源(Kim, 2012)쓽 뿰援 寃곌낵 쑀궗븯떎. 쟾닠븳 궡슜怨 媛숈씠 蹂 뿰援 寃곌낵뒗 뿰졊媛 넂쓣닔濡 쟾떊嫄닿컯怨 援ш컯嫄닿컯 臾몄젣媛 엳뒗 寃쎌슦媛 留롮븯怨, 쟾떊嫄닿컯怨 援ш컯嫄닿컯 臾몄젣媛 엳뒗 寃쎌슦 븸쑀異쒕웾씠 쟻 寃껋쑝濡 굹궗떎. 듅엳 쟾떊吏덊솚씠 엳뒗 寃쎌슦 援ш컯嫄닿컯 臾몄젣媛 뜑遺덉뼱 諛쒖깮븷 솗瑜좎씠 넂湲 븣臾몄뿉 吏 · 媛꾩젒쟻씤 끂젰쑝濡 씤븯뿬 븸쑀異쒕웾쓣 利앷븷 닔 엳떎硫 吏냽쟻씤 봽濡쒓렇옩쑝濡 솗떆궗 븘슂媛 엳떎.

蹂 뿰援ъ쓽 긽옄媛 쟾떊吏덊솚씠 떎뼇븯寃 끂異쒕릺뼱 엳嫄곕굹 떖媛곹븳 援ш컯嫄닿컯 臾몄젣瑜 媛吏怨 엳뒗 寃쎌슦媛 븘땲誘濡 씪諛섏쟻씤 寃곌낵씪怨 빐꽍븯湲 뼱졄떎怨 궗猷뚮맂떎. 삉 끂씤뱾쓽 븸쑀異쒕웾 媛먯냼뿉 븳 紐낇솗븳 쁺뼢슂씤쓣 빐꽍븯湲곗뿉뒗 뼱젮슫 젏씠 留롫떎怨 깮媛곷맂떎. 4二쇨컙 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 뼢긽쓣 쐞빐 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 쟻슜븯吏留 옣湲곗쟻쑝濡 誘몄튂뒗 쁺뼢源뚯뒗 빐꽍븯湲 뼱졄떎뒗 寃껋씠 젣븳젏씠떎. 洹몃읆뿉룄 遺덇뎄븯怨 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏瑜 以묒옱踰뺤쑝濡 궗슜븯뿬 븸쑀異쒕웾쓣 利앷떆궎뒗뜲 슚怨쇱쟻씤 諛⑸쾿엫쓣 솗씤븯떎. 뼢썑 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먭낵 쟾떊嫄닿컯, 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨쇱쓽 긽샇 愿젴꽦쓣 뙆븙븯뿬 援ш컯嫄닿컯뿉 븳 씤떇쓣 넂뿬빞 븯硫 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯뿉 엯泥댁“ 븸꽑 留덉궗吏쓽 湲띿젙쟻씤 쁺뼢쓣 엯利앺븯湲 쐞빐 諛섎났쟻씤 쟻슜 슚怨쇱뿉 빐꽌룄 吏냽쟻쑝濡 뿰援щ릺뼱졇빞 븷 寃껋씠떎. 뜑 굹븘媛 援ш컯嫄닿컯怨 쟾떊嫄닿컯 洹몃━怨 援ш컯嫄댁“媛먯쓽 긽샇 쁺뼢슂씤뱾쓣 李얠븘궡怨 씠瑜 諛뷀깢쑝濡 쟾떊 諛 援ш컯嫄닿컯 利앹쭊뿉 룄씠 맆 닔 엳쓣 寃껋쑝濡 깮媛곷맂떎. 異뷀썑 끂씤 援ш컯愿由 봽濡쒓렇옩怨 젣룄 쟻슜 諛⑹븞씠 留덈젴맆 닔 엳룄濡 吏냽쟻씤 뿰援ш 븘슂븷 寃껋쑝濡 궗猷뚮맂떎.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2017R1C1B5076722).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References
  1. Cassolato SF, Tumbull RS. 2003. Xerostomia:clinical aspects and treatment. Gerodontology. 2003. 20: 64-77.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Cho EP. 2009. Impact of oral function improving exercise on the oral function and quality of life in the elderl. Doctoral dissertation. Chungnam University. 2009.
  3. Cho EA, Kim GH. 2012. Correlation among xerostomia, halitosis, and salivary pH in older adults. J Korean Ger Nurs. 2012. 14: 69-78.
  4. Fox PC, Ven PF, Sonies BC, Weiffenbach JM, Baum BJ. 1985. Xerostomia:evaluation of a symptom with increasing significance. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985. 110: 519-525.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Jang JH, Baik SH, Kim AJ, Jung SH, Kim OS, Kim SH. 2006. The effect of xerostomia on perceived oral health among elderly people wearing dentures. J Korean Acad Dent Health. 2006. 30: 438-446.
  6. KOSIS. Korean statistical information service http://kosis.kr. 2013.
  7. Kim EJ. 2015. Differences in the Oral Dryness of the Elderly according to General Characteristics. J Korean Soc of Dent Hyg. 2015. 17: 75-82.
  8. Kim AR. Xerostomia of older people:A review [Master’s thesis]. 2010.
  9. Kim MK, Jung HM, Park GJ. 2014. Subjective xerostomia and jaw functional limitation related quality of life of the elderly. Journal of Health Service Nanagement. 2014. 8: 87-102.
    CrossRef
  10. Kim MK, Jung HM, Park GJ. 2014. Subjective xerostomia and jaw functional limitation related quality of life of the elderly. J Korean Health Ser Manag. 2014. 8: 87-102.
    CrossRef
  11. Kim SJ, Choi JS. 2013. Research Article:The associated factors with xerostomia in patients with systemic diseases. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2013. 13: 386-392.
  12. Kim YJ. The effect of oral function improving exercise on the saliva, xerostama and halitosis in the elderly. Master’s thesis. Keimyung University. 2011.
  13. Kim DY. 2012. Effect of a mouth exercise program on improvement of functions and quality of life related to oral health in the elderly. Doctoral dissertation. Inje University. 2012.
  14. Lee JY, Lee YO, Kho HS. 2005. Reliabillity of a questionnaire for evaluation of dry mouth symptoms. Journal of Oral Meicine and Pain. 2005. 30: 383-389.
  15. Lee JH, Kwon HK, Lee YH, Lee MH, Lee HK. 2010. Original Article:Effect of regular oral exercise on oral function in elderly patients with Long-term care. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010. 34: 422-429.
  16. MOHW. Ministry of Health and Welfare http://www.mohw.go.kr. 2017.
  17. Nederfors T, Isaksson R, Mörnstad H, Dahlöf C. 1997. Prevalence of perceived symptoms of dry mouth in an adult swedish population-relation to age, sex and pharmacotherapy. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997. 25: 211-216.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Rayman S, Dincer E, Almas K. 2011. Xerostomia:Diagnosis and management in dental practice. Todays FDA. 2011. 23: 56-61.
    Pubmed
  19. Wu AJ, Hip JA. 1993. A characterization of major salivary gland flow rates in the presence of medications and systemic diseases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993. 76: 301-306.
    Pubmed CrossRef