## 3 Results
### Orofacial Muscle Strength by General Health-Related Characteristics  
Anterior tongue elevation strength was the lowest in non-drinkers (42.25 \(\pm\) 12.30 kPa) (\(p\)! 0.05). Although it was lower in participants with cardiovascular disease (39.60 \(\pm\) 11.79 kPa) compared to those without, the difference was not statistically significant (\(p\) = 0.074). Lip compression strength was the lowest in participants with three or more systemic diseases \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Characteristics** & **Division** & \(n\) & **\%** \\ \hline Sex & male & 17 & 24.3 \\  & female & 53 & 75.7 \\ Age (y) & 65–69 & 20 & 28.6 \\  & 70–74 & 15 & 21.4 \\  & 75–79 & 15 & 21.4 \\  & \(\geq\)80 & 20 & 28.6 \\ Education level & \(\leq\)elementary school & 32 & 45.7 \\  & middle school & 23 & 32.9 \\  & \(\geq\)high school & 15 & 21.4 \\ Economic activity & yes & 23 & 32.9 \\  & no & 47 & 67.1 \\ Living status & alone & 10 & 14.3 \\  & with spouse & 32 & 45.7 \\  & with children & 28 & 40.0 \\ Orofacial muscles & tongue elevation & 44.50 \(\pm\) 12.00 \\ Strength \({}^{\dagger}\) & cheek compression & 23.53 \(\pm\) 7.03 \\  & lip compression & 15.63 \(\pm\) 3.91 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\dagger}\) means \(\pm\) standard deviations of participants.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Distribution of sociodemographic characteristics and orofacial muscle strength levels of participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(n\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\overline{\text{\bf{Tongue}}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\overline{\text{\bf{d}}}\) ^ (or \(\overline{\text{\bf{n}}}\)) (\(\overline{\text{\bf{p}}}\))} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Check**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\overline{\text{\bf{d}}}\) ^ (or \(\overline{\text{\bf{n}}}\)) (\(\overline{\text{\bf{p}}}\))} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\overline{\text{\bf{d}}}\) ^ (or \(\overline{\text{\bf{n}}}\)) (\(\overline{\text{\bf{p}}}\))} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\overline{\text{\bf{d}}}\) ^ (or \(\overline{\text{\bf{n}}}\)) (\(\overline{\text{\bf{p}}}\))} \\  & & & **Elevation** & & & **Compression** & \\ \hline Sex & male & 17 & 49.59 \(\pm\) 10.38 & **0.595** & 26.47 \(\pm\) 6.53 & **0.615** & 17.94 \(\pm\) 4.76 & **0.743** \\  & female & 53 & 42.87 \(\pm\) 12.11 & **(0.040)** & 22.58 \(\pm\) 6.98 & **0.047** & 14.89 \(\pm\) 3.32 & **(0.023)** \\ Age \({}^{\dagger 4}\) (y) & \(\leq\)74 & 35 & 50.54 \(\pm\) 8.79 & **1.159** & 26.20 \(\pm\) 5.51 & **0.817** & 17.03 \(\pm\) 2.91 & **0.761** \\  & \(\geq\)75 & 35 & 38.46 \(\pm\) 11.82 & **(c.0001)** & 20.86 \(\pm\) 7.42 & **(c.0001)** & 14.23 \(\pm\) 4.31 & **(0.001)** \\ Education & \(\leq\)elementary school & 32 & 38.63 \(\pm\) 12.04 & **0.991** & 21.03 \(\pm\) 7.58 & **0.679** & 13.75 \(\pm\) 3.27 & **0.984** \\ level & \(\geq\)middle school & 38 & 49.45 \(\pm\) 9.59 & **(c.001)** & 25.63 \(\pm\) 5.84 & **(0.003)** & 17.21 \(\pm\) 3.74 & **(c.001)** \\ Economic & yes & 23 & 49.09 \(\pm\) 10.16 & **0.606** & 26.61 \(\pm\) 6.01 & **0.700** & 16.48 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 0.335 \\ activity & no & 47 & 42.26 \(\pm\) 12.28 & **(0.012)** & 22.02 \(\pm\) 7.05 & **0.005** & 15.21 \(\pm\) 4.10 & (0.091) \\ Living & alone & 10 & 42.30 \(\pm\) 12.36\({}^{\circ}\) & **0.338** & 21.50 \(\pm\) 7.01 & 0.074 & 14.40 \(\pm\) 0.00\({}^{\circ}\) & **0.152** \\ status & with spouse & 32 & 49.25 \(\pm\) 10.25\({}^{\circ}\) & **(0.007)** & 25.59 \(\pm\) 6.52 & (0.076) & 17.28 \(\pm\) 3.97\({}^{\circ}\) & **(0.004)** \\  & with children & 28 & 39.86 \(\pm\) 12.05\({}^{\circ}\) & 21.28 \(\pm\) 7.19 & 14.18 \(\pm\) 3.11\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\dagger}\) means \(\pm\) standard deviations of participants.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Orofacial muscle strength by sociodemographic characteristics (units: kPa). (14.22 \(\pm\) 3.40 kPa) (\(p\) < 0.05). It was also lower in those with diabetes (13.76 \(\pm\) 3.68 kPa) and cardiovascular disease (13.60 \(\pm\) 3.83 kPa) than in those without these conditions (\(p\) < 0.05).