| Literature DB >> 31333490 |
María Olimpia Paz Alvarenga1, Railson de Oliveira Ferreira1, Marcela Baraúna Magno2, Nathalia Carolina Fernandes Fagundes3, Lucianne Cople Maia2, Rafael Rodrigues Lima1.
Abstract
Background: An amount of cognition decline is normal with aging; however, intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors may exacerbate it, affecting social and occupational tasks. Masticatory dysfunction (MD), as a general term, refers to an impairment in the masticatory function triggered by a structural factor, such as tooth loss; functional factors, such as weaker bite force or a poorer masticatory performance; or both factors. MD acting as a source of chronic stress, promotes functional and morphological changes on the hippocampus, a brain area crucial for learning and memory abilities. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the association between MD and cognitive deficit (CD), and demonstrate whether might be adequately considered as a risk factor.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive deficit; masticatory dysfunction; meta-analysis; systematic review; tooth loss
Year: 2019 PMID: 31333490 PMCID: PMC6618904 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Summary of characteristics of the included studies.
| Gao et al., | China | ≥50 | MMSE | A specially trained dentist from the Peking University School of Stomatology, China performed the dental examination | Age, sex, marriage status, family income, educational level, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and drinking/smoking/regular exercise habits | Multiple linear regression | Tooth loss and mitochondrial gene variants may have an effect on cognitive function in this study population | |
| Gil-Montoya et al., | Spain | ≥50 | Phototest cognitive test | A complete clinical oral examination was performed by four dentists (SLI and three collaborator) | Age, sex, educational level, tobacco and alcohol consumption, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, and family, personal, medical, clinical attachment loss and pharmacological histories related to cognitive impairment, i.e., potential confounders | Multiple logistic regression analysis | The significant association of cognitive impairment with the number of teeth present in the bivariate analysis disappeared after adjustment for age, sex, clinical attachment loss, oral hygiene habits, and the presence of hyperlipidemia Periodontitis appears to be associated with cognitive impairment after controlling for age, sex, educational level, and oral hygiene habits | |
| Ishimiya et al., | Japan | ≥60 | DSM-III-R | Performed by a dentist in accordance with the methodology of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey | Age; sex; history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia; low education | A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests | Tooth loss-related dietary pattern was associated cognitive impairment in a general Japanese population | |
| Nilsson et al., | Sweden | ≥60 | MMSE and clock test | An oral examination including clinical registration of the number of teeth present was performed by a specially trained dental hygienist | Age and education | Simple logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression | A statistically significant association of the number of teeth on cognitive abilities of older adults were demonstrated when adjusted for age and level of education | |
| Nilsson et al., | Sweden | ≥60 | MMSE | Comprehensive clinical and radiographic examination by an experienced dental hygienist | Age, gender, and education | A chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression | Adjusted for age, gender, and level of education, a statistically significant association between loss of alveolar bone, the number of teeth and the outcome of the MMSE test was confirmed | |
| Park et al., | Korea | ≥50 | MMSE | Study did not mention about the dental measure but showed a number of remaining teeth | Smoking, alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, stroke, dementia, and education levels | Independent | The number of teeth lost is related to cognitive impairment | |
| Reyes-Ortiz et al., | United States | ≥65 | MMSE | Self-reported | Age, Gender, Education level, Spanish spoken at interview, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, and heart attack | Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for categorical variables or the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA test for continuous variables | Fewer teeth predict cognitive decline in older Mexican Americans that are independent of socio-demographic variables and health factors such as visual impairment, medical conditions, and functional impairment | |
| Saito et al., | Japan | ≥60 | MMSE | A dental examination was performed by two dentists under artificial lighting, with both the dentist and the subject in a seated position | The demographic (age, gender, education level) and lifestyle (smoking, drinking), positive history of diseases, TMIG-IC score, and CES-D | Student's unpaired | The number of teeth (0–10) was found to be a significant independent risk factor of cognitive impairment | |
| Shimazaki et al., | Japan | ≥65 | Mental health status from medical records of each institution | Was examined under sufficient artificial light, with dental mirrors and explorers, by two dentists trained in the use of epidemiological indices for oral health | Age, physical health, type of institution, and cerebrovascular disorder | Logistic regression analysis | The relationship between baseline dentition status and follow-up mental impairment was not significant | |
| Stewart et al., | England | ≥70 | DSM-III-R | Dental status | Age, education, stroke, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, smoking status, blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol level | Logistic regression models and separate regression models | Lower tooth count was a significant association for one of the three examinations | |
| Takeuchi et al., | Japan | ≥60 | MMSE | Dental status was clinically examined by one trained dentist | Demographic and life style characteristics | Linear regression models | Loss of posterior teeth occlusion was independently associated with cognitive decline in nursing home older residents in Japan | |
| Takeuchi et al., | Japan | ≥75 | DSM-III-R | Calibrated dentists performed a clinical oral examination, following the method of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey | Demographic characteristics, current occupation, medical history and treatment, physical activity, smoking habits, alcohol intake, tooth brushing frequency, and regular dental visits | Logistic regression analysis | Tooth loss is a risk factor for development of all-cause dementia and AD in an elderly Japanese population | |
| Yamamoto et al., | Japan | ≥65 | Standardized questionnaire (the name was not specified) | Assessment by experts | Age, household income, presence of illness, alcohol intake, exercise, and forgetfulness | Univariate and multivariate models | Few teeth were associated with dementia in older Japanese people even after adjusting for sociodemographics, health status, health behaviors, and forgetfulness as an early symptom of mild cognitive impairment | |
| Zhu et al., | China | ≥60 | MoCA Chinese version | The number of missing teeth, excluding the third molars, was recorded by a single investigator within 7 days of admission | Age, sex, body-mass index, education level, income, medical history, inflammatory markers, and medical assessment | Independent | Multiple tooth loss is independently associated with vascular cognitive impairment in subjects with acute ischemic stroke | |
Cs, Cross-sectional study; PC, Prospective cohort study; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCa, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; DSM-III-R, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third edition, Revised.
Figure 1Flow diagram for study selection according with PRISMA statement.
Assessment of quality and risk of bias for included studies.
| Study design appropriate to objectives? | Objective common design | ||||||||||||||
| Prevalence cross-sectional | |||||||||||||||
| Prognosis cohort | |||||||||||||||
| Treatment controlled trial | |||||||||||||||
| Cause cohort, case-control, cross-sectional | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Study sample representative? | Source of sample | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sampling method | ++ | 0 | ++ | 0 | 0 | ++ | 0 | ++ | 0 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Sample size | + | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | + | 0 | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Entry criteria/exclusion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Non-respondents | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Control group acceptable? | Definition of controls | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Source of controls | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Matching/randomization | ++ | + | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | ++ | 0 | + | ++ | + | + | 0 | |
| Comparable characteristics | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Quality of measurements and outcomes? | Validity | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ++ | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 |
| Reproducibility | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | |
| Blindness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Quality control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Completeness | Compliance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Drop outs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Deaths | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Missing data | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Distorting influences? | Extraneous treatments | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Contamination | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Changes over time | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Confounding factors | + | + | + | ++ | + | + | + | + | + | + | ++ | + | + | + | |
| Distortion reduced by analysis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Summary questions | Bias | ||||||||||||||
| Are the results erroneously biased in certain direction? | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | |
| Confounding | |||||||||||||||
| Are there any serious confusing or other distorting influences? | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
| Chance | |||||||||||||||
| Is it likely that the results occurred by chance? | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
++, cases with problems; +, cases with minor problems; 0, cases with no problems; NA, not applicable.
Figure 2Forest plot of log OR between masticatory dysfunction and cognitive deficit.
Summary of findings on the association between masticatory dysfunction and cognitive deficit.
| 9 observational studies | Observational studies | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Strong association | OR 2.24 (1.73–2.90) | – | ⊕⊕○○ Low |
| 0 fewer per 1,000 (from 0 fewer to 0 fewer) | |||||||||
CI, Confidence interval; OR, Odds ratio.
Upper limit of confidence interval is >25% of overall OR.