| Literature DB >> 33267812 |
Ting-Yu Lu1,2, Jen-Hao Chen3,4, Je-Kang Du3,4, Ying-Chun Lin1, Pei-Shan Ho1,5, Chien-Hung Lee6, Chih-Yang Hu7, Hsiao-Ling Huang8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of poor oral health on older adults' quality of life is a public health problem. In this study, the mediating effects of dental status, occlusal condition, dysphagia, and masticatory performance on the association between xerostomia and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were assessed in the older adult population.Entities:
Keywords: Dysphagia; Masticatory performance; Oral health-related quality of life; Path analysis; Xerostomia
Year: 2020 PMID: 33267812 PMCID: PMC7709251 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01901-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Basic information according to xerostomia group (n=1,076)
| Variables | Total | Xerostomia-free | Xerostomia ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| Age (M±SD)† | 74.0±6.4 | 73.7±6.3 | 76.5±6.6 | <.001 | |||
| Sex | 0.03 | ||||||
| Men | 308 | 28.6 | 284 | 29.7 | 24 | 20.2 | |
| Women | 768 | 71.4 | 673 | 70.3 | 95 | 79.8 | |
| Education level | <.001 | ||||||
| Illiterate/ Elementary school | 495 | 46.0 | 422 | 44.1 | 73 | 61.3 | |
| Junior high/ High school | 366 | 34.0 | 333 | 34.8 | 33 | 27.7 | |
| Above technical school/ College | 215 | 20.0 | 202 | 21.1 | 13 | 10.9 | |
| BMI (M±SD)† | 24.3±3.5 | 24.3±3.5 | 24.2±3.8 | 0.888 | |||
| Number of natural teeth | <.001 | ||||||
| < 20 teeth | 450 | 41.8 | 379 | 39.6 | 71 | 59.6 | |
| ≥ 20 teeth | 626 | 58.2 | 578 | 60.4 | 48 | 40.3 | |
| Number of functional teeth | <.001 | ||||||
| < 20 teeth | 399 | 37.1 | 334 | 34.9 | 65 | 54.6 | |
| ≥ 20 teeth | 677 | 62.9 | 623 | 65.1 | 54 | 45.4 | |
| Occlusal condition | <.001 | ||||||
| A | 445 | 41.4 | 416 | 43.5 | 29 | 24.4 | |
| B | 415 | 38.6 | 359 | 37.5 | 56 | 47.1 | |
| C | 216 | 20.1 | 182 | 19.0 | 34 | 28.6 | |
| Implant | 45 | 4.2 | 43 | 4.5 | 2 | 1.7 | 0.148 |
| Edentulous | 94 | 8.7 | 79 | 8.3 | 15 | 12.6 | 0.113 |
| Removable denture | |||||||
| CD | 202 | 18.8 | 171 | 17.9 | 31 | 26.1 | 0.031 |
| RPD | 319 | 29.7 | 269 | 28.1 | 50 | 42.0 | 0.002 |
| PI (0- 3) (M±SD)† | 0.9±0.5 | 0.9±0.5 | 1.0±0.7 | 0.569 | |||
| Tongue coating (0-12) (M±SD)† | 4.5±3.3 | 4.5±3.3 | 3.9±3.3 | 0.058 | |||
| Masticatory performance | <.001 | ||||||
| Good | 373 | 35.1 | 350 | 37.0 | 23 | 19.5 | |
| Moderate | 410 | 38.6 | 364 | 38.5 | 46 | 39.0 | |
| Poor | 280 | 26.3 | 231 | 24.4 | 49 | 41.5 | |
| Dysphagia | 136 | 12.6 | 97 | 10.1 | 39 | 32.8 | <.001 |
| Sarcopenia | 46 | 4.3 | 32 | 3.3 | 14 | 11.8 | <.001 |
| Frailty | <.001 | ||||||
| Robust | 857 | 79.7 | 788 | 82.3 | 69 | 58.0 | |
| Pre-frailty | 205 | 19.1 | 159 | 16.6 | 46 | 38.7 | |
| Frailty | 14 | 1.3 | 10 | 1.0 | 4 | 3.4 | |
| GOHAI (M±SD) (0-60) † | 53.0±6.8 | 53.7±6.3 | 47.9±8.8 | <.001 | |||
chi-square test; †two sample t test
BMI Body mass index, CD Complete denture, RPD Removable complete denture, PI Plaque index
Hierarchical linear regression analysis of GOHAI scores associated with physical function, dental status, oral hygiene and oral function
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (95 % CI) | β (95 % CI) | β (95 % CI) | β (95 % CI) | |
| Frailty | ||||
| Pre-frailty vs. robust | -2.23 (-3.27, -1.19) | -2.13 (-3.16, -1.10) | -2.08 (-3.18, -0.98) | -1.38 (-2.46, -0.29) |
| Frailty vs. robust | -2.90 (-6.47, 0.67) | -2.84 (-6.38, 0.70) | -3.17 (-6.89, 0.55) | -2.83 (-6.44, 0.79) |
| Sarcopenia | -3.88 (-5.92, -1.84) | -3.82 (-5.84, -1.79) | -3.42 (-5.66, -1.17) | -2.59 (-4.78, -0.40) |
| Removable denture (yes) | - | 0.29 (-0.85, 1.43) | 0.25 (-0.90, 1.40) | 0.52 (-0.68, 1.72) |
Functional teeth (<20 teeth) | -2.21 (-3.40, -1.03) | -2.39 (-3.65, -1.14) | -1.87 (-3.26, -0.49) | |
| PI | 0.20 (-0.65, 1.05) | 0.18 (-0.65, 1.02) | ||
| Tongue coating | 0.06 (-0.07, 0.20) | 0.04 (-0.10, 0.17) | ||
| Xerostomia | -3.93 (-5.36, -2.50) | |||
| Dysphagia | -2.78 (-4.08, -1.48) | |||
| Occlusal condition | ||||
| B vs. A | -0.74 (-1.83, 0.34) | |||
| C vs. A | 0.92 (-1.32, 3.16) | |||
| Masticatory | ||||
| Moderate vs. good | -0.70 (-1.64, 0.25) | |||
| Poor vs. good | -1.06 (-2.42, 0.03) | |||
PI Plaque index
Model 1: This model included demographic factors, frailty and sarcopenia.
Model 2: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture and functional teeth.
Model 3: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture, functional teeth, plaque index and tongue coating.
Model 4: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture, functional teeth, plaque index, tongue coating, xerostomia, dysphagia, occlusal condition and masticatory performance.
Summary of hierarchical linear regression models of GOHAI scores associated with physical function, dental status, oral hygiene and oral function
| Multiple R. | Adjust R2 (%) | R2 (%) | R2 change (%) | Sig. change | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.24 | 4.95 | 5.57 | 5.57 | F change = 8.94 | |
| Model 2 | 0.27 | 6.63 | 7.42 | 1.85 | F change = 9.42 | |
| Model 3 | 0.29 | 7.03 | 8.17 | 0.75 | F change = 7.14 | |
| Model 4 | 0.39 | 13.41 | 15.07 | 6.90 | F change = 9.06 | |
Model 1: This model included demographic factors, frailty and sarcopenia.
Model 2: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture and functional teeth.
Model 3: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture, functional teeth, plaque index and tongue coating.
Model 4: This model included demographic factors, frailty, sarcopenia, removable denture, functional teeth, plaque index, tongue coating, xerostomia, dysphagia, occlusal condition and masticatory performance.
Fig. 1Path analysis framework
Standardized effects of physical function, dental status and oral function on GOHAI with correlated errors
| Outcomes | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | R2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional teeth | 15.1% | |||
| Xerostomia→ Functional teeth | -0.11*** | − | -0.11*** | |
| Occlusal condition | 14.0% | |||
| Xerostomia→ Occlusal condition | 0.09** | − | 0.09** | |
| Dysphagia | 9.2% | |||
| Functional teeth → Dysphagia | 0.10 | − | 0.10 | |
| Occlusal condition→ Dysphagia | 0.11 | − | 0.11 | |
| Xerostomia → Dysphagia | 0.20*** | -0.001 | 0.20*** | |
| Masticatory performance | 38.2% | |||
| Functional teeth→ Masticatory | -0.43*** | − | -0.43*** | |
| Occlusal condition→Masticatory | 0.13* | − | 0.13* | |
| Xerostomia→ Masticatory | 0.06* | 0.06*** | 0.12*** | |
| GOHAI | 13.6% | |||
| Functional teeth → GOHAI | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.06 | |
| Occlusal condition → GOHAI | -0.03 | -0.03* | -0.05 | |
| Dysphagia → GOHAI | -0.12*** | − | -0.12*** | |
| Masticatory → GOHAI | -0.09* | − | -0.09* | |
| Xerostomia → GOHAI | -0.20*** | -0.04*** | -0.24*** |
The covariates including age, gender and education
R2: the variance of endogenous variables that is explained
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001