[Translation from Japanese to English ] For 4 days of treatment in RI room, the patient had a candy at 2g every after...

Additional info

論文です．フォーマルな形式でお願いします．

Original text

患者はRI治療室に入室中の４日間，２gのｱﾒを毎食後摂取した．A群ではいずれも有意な変化は認めず，すなわち急性期の唾液腺障害を抑制した可能性が示唆された．ＳとKtestの結果からＢ群の機能が客観的に低下したことが示された一方で，A群ではその機能を維持できた．これはｱﾒが持つ粘膜保護成分により炎症が抑制され，口腔内の湿潤環境が維持される結果として唾液量が増加したと考えられる．従来報告されているｶﾞﾑによる予防に比較し，ｱﾒは酸刺激による粘膜の荒れや導管閉塞に伴う唾液の濃縮がない

Translation / English

For 4 days of treatment in RI room, the patient had a candy at 2g every after meal. A group didn't have any changes for effectiveness. It showed the possibility to suppress the acute salivary gland disorder. From the result of S and Ktest, while the decreasing of function at B group has been shown, at A group, the function has been maintained. This is why mucosal protection component in candy works for suppressing the inflammation and the saliva volume was increased due to the moisturising in oral is maintained. Comparison with former report that says the prevention using chewing gum, candy doesn't have to condense of saliva resulted of roughening of mucous membrane because of acid stimulation or conduit obstruction.

Translation / English

The patient took 2g of candy balls daily for 4 consecutive days while they were in the RI treatment room. There was no significant change in group A, indicating that it may have suppressed salivary gland disorder in the acute phase. While the results of S and Ktest showed that the patients' salivary function in group B objectively decreased, group A was able to keep its function. It is considered that because inflammation is eased by the membrane protective ingredient contained by the candy balls, and the amount of saliva increases as a result of keeping the wet condition in the oral. In contrast to the previous study focusing on the prevention by chewing gum, the candy balls may be a better choice than the chewing gum because the intervention using chewing gum does cause acid irritation and mucosal obstruction.

Translation / English

The patient is staying at RI treatment room for 4 days and took 2 mg of candy every after meal. Group A didn't show significant change which indicates it suppressed acute salivation disorder. S and K test shows Group B's function lowered objectively, on the other hand group A kept the function. This can be considered the mucosal protection ingredient in candy suppressed inflammation and oral moist environment kept consistent, the salivary secretion has increased as a result. Conventional report with gum prevention, this candy doesn't cause damage to mucous or concentrated saliva associated with conduit blockage caused by acid stimulation.