145 The severity of oral dryness and the use of drymouth interventions Table 3: Perceived oral dryness in four different intra-oral regions of the lower jaw as determined with the Regional Oral Dryness Inventory (RODI) in six different patient groups. Data are presented as median with corresponding interquartile range (IQR) and as a mean with standard deviation (SD.). N indicates the total number of subjects per intra-oral region. Patient groups Lower lip: mean±SD. (N)* Lower lip: median±IQR Anterior tongue: mean±SD. (N)* Anterior tongue: median±IQR Posterior tongue: mean±SD. (N)* Posterior tongue: median±IQR Floor mouth: mean±SD. (N)* Floor mouth: median±IQR Controls# (N=136) 2.38±1.27 (N=111) 2.00±1.00-3.00 2.48±1.33 (N=112) 2.50±1.00-4.00 2.57±1.34 (N=113) 3.00±1.00-4.00 2.01±1.20 (N=112) 2.00±1.00-3.00 Low Med patients (N=157) 2.70±1.28 (N=135)a 3.00-1.00-4.00 2.83±1.29 (N=132)a 3.00±2.00-4.00 2.79±1.34 (N=134) 3.00±1.00-4.00 2.42±1.31 (N=132)a 2.00±1.00-4.00 High Med patients (N=140) 3.05±1.27 (N=120)a,b 3.00±2.00-4.00 3.25±1.29 (N=118)a,b 3.00±2.75-4.00 3.24±1.30 (N=120)a,b 3.00±2.00-4.00 2.91±1.35 (N=118)a,b 3.00±2.00-4.00 RTX patients (N=10) 3.10±1.10 (N=10) 3.50±2.00-4.00 3.00±1.41 (N=10) 4.00±1.00-4.00 3.10±1.37 (N=10) 3.50±1.75-4.00 2.70±1.16 (N=10) 3.00±1.75-4.00 SS patients (N=46) 3.40±1.03 (N=40)a,b 3.00±3.00-4.00 3.41±1.14 (N=41)a,b 4.00±3.00-4.00 3.43±1.21 (N=42)a,b 4.00±3.00-4.00 3.07±1.27 (N=41)a,b 3.00±2.00-4.00 SS + High Med patients (N=22) 3.53±1.12 (N=19)a,b 4.00±3.00-4.00 3.72±1.02 (N=18)a,b 4.00±3.00-4.00 4.00±0.67 (N=19)a,b,c 4.00±4.004.00 3.68±0.95 (N=19)a,b,c,d 4.00±3.00-4.00 # controls: subjects visiting a saliva clinic who did not use prescription medication, were not treated with radiotherapy in head and/or neck region and were not diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome. * Indicates significant differences between the six patient groups, Kruskal Wallis test p<0.01. Mann-Whitney U test: a p<0.05 vs. controls, b p<0.05 vs. Low Med patients, c p<0.05 vs. High Med patients, d p<0.05 vs. RTX patients, and e p<0.05 vs. SS patients. Reprinted with permission from Clinical Oral Investigations 2021;25:4031–4043 7
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw