| Literature DB >> 34446118 |
Daiki Watanabe1,2, Kayo Kurotani1,3, Tsukasa Yoshida1,2, Hinako Nanri1, Yuya Watanabe1,2,4, Heiwa Date5, Aya Itoi1,6, Chiho Goto7, Kazuko Ishikawa-Takata1,8, Takeshi Kikutani9, Mitsuyoshi Yoshida10,11, Hiroyuki Fujita2, Yosuke Yamada1,2, Misaka Kimura2,12,13.
Abstract
Although better diet quality is inversely related to the risk of geriatric disorders, the association of adherence to dietary guidelines with oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is unclear. We aimed to investigate this association in older Japanese adults. This cross-sectional study included 7984 Japanese participants aged ≥ 65 years from the population-based Kyoto-Kameoka study. Dietary intake was estimated using a validated self-administered FFQ. The scores for adherence to the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top (range: 0 (worst) to 80 (best)) were calculated. These scores were stratified into quartiles (Qs). Poor OHRQoL was defined as a score ≤ 50 using a 12-item Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. The OR and 95 % CI were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and the spline model. Higher adherence score was associated with a lower prevalence of poor OHRQoL (Q1-Q4:36·0 %, 32·1 %, 27·9 % and 25·1 %, respectively). An inverse association was found between the score for adherence to the food-based Japanese dietary guidelines and the OR of poor OHRQoL among all the participants (Q1: reference; Q2: OR, 0·87 (95 % CI: 0·75, 1·00); Q3: OR, 0·77 (95 % CI: 0·66, 0·90); Q4: OR, 0·72 (95 % CI: 0·62, 0·85); Pfor trend < 0·001). These relationships were similar to the results in the spline model. Higher adherence to the food-based Japanese dietary guidelines is inversely associated with the prevalence of poor OHRQoL in older adults. Our results may provide useful insights to improve and maintain oral health.Entities:
Keywords: Cross-sectional study; Diet quality; Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top; Older adults; Oral health-related quality of life
Year: 2021 PMID: 34446118 PMCID: PMC9340853 DOI: 10.1017/S0007114521003329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Nutr ISSN: 0007-1145 Impact factor: 4.125
Baseline characteristics of the study participants
(Mean values and standard deviations; numbers and percentages)
| Quartile of the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top score | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | Q1 ( | Q2 ( | Q3 ( | Q4 ( | |||||||
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
| Age (years) | |||||||||||
| Mean | 73·5 | 73·7 | 73·4 | 73·2 | 73·6 | 0·037 | |||||
| | 6·2 | 6·2 | 6·3 | 6·1 | 6·0 | ||||||
| Women | 4234 | 53·0 | 639 | 32·0 | 991 | 49·7 | 1184 | 59·3 | 1420 | 71·1 | < 0·001 |
| PD ≥ 1000 people/km2
| 3655 | 45·8 | 839 | 42·0 | 883 | 44·2 | 921 | 46·1 | 1012 | 50·7 | < 0·001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||||||||||
| Mean | 22·6 | 22·8 | 22·7 | 22·6 | 22·3 | < 0·001 | |||||
|
| 3·0 | 3·1 | 3·1 | 3·0 | 2·9 | ||||||
| Alcohol drinker | 5200 | 65·1 | 1469 | 73·6 | 1337 | 67·0 | 1225 | 61·4 | 1169 | 58·6 | < 0·001 |
| Current smoker | 843 | 10·6 | 379 | 19·0 | 231 | 11·6 | 134 | 6·7 | 99 | 5·0 | < 0·001 |
| MVPA | 3596 | 45·0 | 866 | 43·4 | 917 | 45·9 | 908 | 45·5 | 905 | 45·3 | 0·376 |
| Living alone | 920 | 11·5 | 198 | 9·9 | 199 | 10·0 | 245 | 12·3 | 278 | 13·9 | < 0·001 |
| HSES | 2747 | 34·4 | 584 | 29·3 | 628 | 31·5 | 716 | 35·9 | 819 | 41·0 | < 0·001 |
| Education ≥ 13 years | 1738 | 21·8 | 392 | 19·6 | 431 | 21·6 | 453 | 22·7 | 462 | 23·2 | < 0·001 |
| Denture use | 4891 | 61·3 | 1282 | 64·2 | 1250 | 62·6 | 1175 | 58·9 | 1184 | 59·3 | < 0·001 |
| Poor mastication | 2521 | 31·6 | 737 | 36·9 | 673 | 33·7 | 605 | 30·3 | 506 | 25·4 | < 0·001 |
| Dry mouth | 2238 | 28·0 | 562 | 28·2 | 600 | 30·1 | 550 | 27·6 | 526 | 26·4 | 0·069 |
| Choking accidents | 1654 | 20·7 | 437 | 21·9 | 441 | 22·1 | 383 | 19·2 | 393 | 19·7 | 0·044 |
| Regular dental check-up | 3038 | 38·1 | 651 | 32·6 | 683 | 34·2 | 831 | 41·6 | 873 | 43·7 | < 0·001 |
| Daily tooth brushing | 7376 | 92·4 | 1750 | 87·7 | 1850 | 92·7 | 1876 | 94·0 | 1900 | 95·2 | < 0·001 |
| No medication | 1805 | 22·6 | 468 | 23·5 | 487 | 24·4 | 424 | 21·2 | 426 | 21·3 | < 0·001 |
| Hypertension | 3006 | 37·7 | 732 | 36·7 | 761 | 38·1 | 763 | 38·2 | 750 | 37·6 | 0·731 |
| Stroke | 273 | 3·4 | 76 | 3·8 | 88 | 4·4 | 61 | 3·1 | 48 | 2·4 | 0·003 |
| Heart disease | 945 | 11·8 | 259 | 13·0 | 254 | 12·7 | 195 | 9·8 | 237 | 11·9 | 0·006 |
| Diabetes | 796 | 10·0 | 205 | 10·3 | 211 | 10·6 | 193 | 9·7 | 187 | 9·4 | 0·570 |
| Dyslipidaemia | 763 | 9·6 | 123 | 6·2 | 165 | 8·3 | 203 | 10·2 | 272 | 13·6 | 0·016 |
Multiple imputations were performed for participants with missing data, and missing variables were imputed: BMI (n 39; 0·5 %), alcohol status (n 305; 3·8 %), smoking status (n 358; 4·5 %), physical activity (n 543; 6·8 %), family structure (n 618; 7·7 %), socio-economic status (n 382; 4·8 %), educational attainment (n 926; 11·6 %), denture use (n 217; 2·7 %), poor mastication (n 197; 2·5 %), dry mouth (n 266; 3·3 %), choking accidents (n 181; 2·3 %), regular dental check-up (n 332; 4·2 %), daily tooth brushing (n 214; 2·7 %) and medications (n 632; 7·9 %). Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 include the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top scores of < 49·3, 49·3–54·8, 54·9–60·1 and ≥ 60·2, respectively. PD, population density; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity; HSES, high socio-economic status; .
Continuous variables are expressed as mean with standard deviation and were analyzed using variance analysis.
Categorical values are shown as numbers (percentage) and were analyzed using the Chi-square test. MVPA refers to those who had MVPA exercise habits from a questionnaire. Have you choked on your tea or soup recently? If a participant responded ‘Yes’ to this question, this was defined as ‘choking accidents’.
Association between energy and nutrient intake and adherence to the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top
| Quartile of the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top score |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 ( | Q2 ( | Q3 ( | Q4 ( | ||
| Nutrients | |||||
| Calibrated EI (kJ/d) | 9582 | 9000 | 8569 | 8335 | –0·23 |
| Uncalibrated EI (kJ/d) | 7628 | 7230 | 7155 | 7105 | –0·05 |
| Protein (% energy/d) | 10·8 | 12·0 | 12·4 | 12·7 | 0·27 |
| Fat (% energy/d) | 19·0 | 23·3 | 25·7 | 28·7 | 0·35 |
| Carbohydrate (% energy/d) | 56·2 | 56·1 | 55·7 | 55·6 | –0·02 |
| SFA (g/4184 kJ/d) | 5·5 | 6·4 | 6·9 | 7·4 | 0·26 |
| MUFA (g/4184 kJ/d) | 8·2 | 9·7 | 10·6 | 12·0 | 0·30 |
| PUFA (g/4184 kJ/d) | 7·0 | 8·3 | 8·8 | 9·8 | 0·27 |
|
| 6·0 | 7·3 | 7·8 | 8·7 | 0·28 |
|
| 1·0 | 1·2 | 1·3 | 1·4 | 0·29 |
| Cholesterol (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 108 | 120 | 122 | 125 | 0·12 |
| Vitamin A (µg RE/4184 kJ/d) | 393 | 480 | 517 | 490 | 0·11 |
| Vitamin D (µg/4184 kJ/d) | 2·2 | 2·5 | 2·4 | 2·4 | 0·02 |
|
| 4·5 | 5·4 | 5·8 | 6·4 | 0·28 |
| Folate (µg/4184 kJ/d) | 143 | 175 | 190 | 217 | 0·34 |
| Vitamin C (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 41 | 52 | 60 | 75 | 0·46 |
| Na (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 898 | 977 | 975 | 979 | 0·08 |
| K (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 979 | 1106 | 1161 | 1229 | 0·29 |
| Fe (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 3·2 | 3·7 | 3·8 | 4·0 | 0·19 |
| Ca (mg/4184 kJ/d) | 225 | 272 | 307 | 331 | 0·31 |
| Total dietary fibre (g/4184 kJ/d) | 5·0 | 5·8 | 6·1 | 6·6 | 0·28 |
| Alcohol (g/4184 kJ/d) | 0·7 | 0·0 | 0·0 | 0·0 | –0·22 |
| Food | |||||
| Grains (g/4184 kJ/d) | 273 | 262 | 254 | 247 | –0·15 |
| Vegetables (g/4184 kJ/d) | 59 | 86 | 99 | 125 | 0·41 |
| Fruits (g/4184 kJ/d) | 13 | 25 | 43 | 70 | 0·56 |
| Dairies (g/4184 kJ/d) | 6 | 42 | 81 | 95 | 0·46 |
| Red meats (g/4184 kJ/d) | 11 | 12 | 11 | 9 | –0·04 |
| White meats (g/4184 kJ/d) | 34 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 0·19 |
| Confectionery (g/4184 kJ/d) | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | –0·13 |
EI, energy intake. Energy intake conversion factor: 1 kJ = 0.239 kcal.
All values are presented as median or correlation coefficient. Nutrient intake was adjusted for energy intake via the nutrient density method by using uncalibrated energy intake. The values are expressed as median in each quartile group. Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 include the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top scores of < 49·3, 49·3–54·8, 54·9–60·1 and ≥ 60·2, respectively.
Spearman’s correlation analysis was used for the relationship between dietary intake and adherence score.
Calibrated EI was calculated using the equation we developed.
Sum of retinol, β-carotene/12, α-carotene/24 and cryptoxanthin/24.
Multivariable logistic regression analyses of the prevalence of poor oral health-related quality of life according to the score for adherence to the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top
(Odd ratios and 95 % confidence intervals; mean values and standard deviations; numbers and percentages)
| Quartile of the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top score | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
| 10 points increment | |||||||
| OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI |
| |
| Score | |||||||||||
| Mean | 43·3 | 52·2 | 57·5 | 64·1 | |||||||
| | 5·5 | 1·6 | 1·5 | 3·0 | |||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
|
| 718 | 641 | 556 | 501 | |||||||
| % | 36·0 | 32·1 | 27·9 | 25·1 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | (Ref) | 0·83 | 0·73, 0·95 | 0·68 | 0·59, 0·78 | 0·57 | 0·50, 0·66 | 0·76 | 0·71, 0·82 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | (Ref) | 0·87 | 0·76, 0·99 | 0·74 | 0·65, 0·86 | 0·64 | 0·56, 0·75 | 0·81 | 0·75, 0·87 |
|
| Model 3 | 1·00 | (Ref) | 0·87 | 0·75, 1·00 | 0·77 | 0·66, 0·90 | 0·72 | 0·62, 0·85 | 0·85 | 0·78, 0·92 |
|
All values are expressed as mean (sd), number (%) or relative OR (95 % CI). All estimates were derived from the multivariable logistic regression model. Poor OHRQoL is defined as a score ≤ 50 on a validated GOHAI. Bold P-values are statistically significant (P < 0·05). Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 include the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top scores of < 49·3, 49·3–54·8, 54·9–60·1 and ≥ 60·2, respectively. GOHAI, Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index; OHRQoL, oral health-related quality of life; Ref, reference.
Linear trend P-values were calculated using the likelihood ratio test and a continuous variable of adherence score.
Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex and population density.
Model 2 was model 1 plus adjustment for BMI, moderate physical activity, smoking status, alcohol status, education, medications, living alone, socio-economic status, green tea consumption, coffee consumption and history of disease (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, heart disease and stroke).
Model 3 was model 2 plus mutual adjustment for denture use, poor mastication, dry mouth, choking accidents, regular dental check-up and daily tooth brushing.
Fig. 1.Association between score for adherence to the food-based Japanese dietary guidelines and prevalence of poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using a restricted cubic spline logistic regression model. Poor OHRQoL is defined as a score ≤ 50 on a validated Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI). Solid lines represent OR, and dashed lines represent 95 % CI. We calculated OR for the prevalence of poor OHRQoL by using the first quartile value of 43·3 points as the reference. This analysis included 7902 participants. We estimated that P < 0·05 and P ≥ 0·05 when the 95 % CI of the OR did not exceed 1·00 and exceeded 1·00, respectively. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, population density, BMI, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake status, educational attainment, medication use, living alone, socio-economic status, green tea consumption, coffee consumption, history of disease (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, heart disease and stroke), denture use, poor mastication, dry mouth, choking accidents, regular dental check-up and daily tooth brushing.
Fig. 2.Relationship between score for adherence to the food-based Japanese dietary guidelines and scores of the total and subdomains for the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) by a restricted cubic spline model. Oral status was evaluated using the (a) total score, (b) physical functioning score, (c) psychosocial functioning, and (d) pain and discomfort via a validated GOHAI. Solid lines represent mean, and dashed lines represent 95 % CI. This analysis included 7902 participants. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, population density, BMI, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol intake status, educational attainment, medication use, living alone, socio-economic status, green tea consumption, coffee consumption, history of disease (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, heart disease and stroke), denture use, poor mastication, dry mouth, choking accidents, regular dental check-up and daily tooth brushing.
Multivariable logistic regression analyses of the prevalence of poor oral health-related quality of life according to the components of the score for adherence to the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top
(Odd ratios and 95 % confidence intervals)
| Quartile of the Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top score | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 ( | Q2 ( | Q3 ( | Q4 ( | 1 point increment | |||||||
| OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI |
| |
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 632 | 598 | 587 | 599 | |||||||
| % | 31·7 | 30·0 | 29·4 | 30·0 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·92 | 0·80, 1·05 | 0·88 | 0·76, 1·00 | 0·87 | 0·76, 1·00 | 0·98 | 0·96, 1·00 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·92 | 0·80, 1·06 | 0·88 | 0·77, 1·01 | 0·88 | 0·76, 1·01 | 0·98 | 0·96, 1·00 | 0·061 |
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·94 | 0·81, 1·09 | 0·90 | 0·77, 1·04 | 0·87 | 0·75, 1·01 | 0·98 | 0·96, 1·00 | 0·119 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 712 | 616 | 577 | 556 | |||||||
| % | 35·7 | 30·0 | 28·3 | 27·1 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·78 | 0·68, 0·89 | 0·70 | 0·61, 0·80 | 0·63 | 0·55, 0·73 | 0·93 | 0·92, 0·95 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·80 | 0·70, 0·92 | 0·74 | 0·64, 0·85 | 0·71 | 0·61, 0·82 | 0·94 | 0·92, 0·96 |
|
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·84 | 0·72, 0·97 | 0·78 | 0·67, 0·91 | 0·77 | 0·65, 0·90 | 0·96 | 0·94, 0·98 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 605 | 630 | 597 | 584 | |||||||
| % | 30·3 | 31·6 | 29·9 | 29·3 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 1·12 | 0·98, 1·28 | 1·07 | 0·93, 1·22 | 1·04 | 0·91, 1·19 | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·02 | 0·726 |
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 1·08 | 0·94, 1·24 | 1·02 | 0·89, 1·18 | 1·00 | 0·87, 1·15 | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·02 | 0·649 |
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 1·06 | 0·90, 1·22 | 1·04 | 0·90, 1·22 | 0·99 | 0·85, 1·15 | 1·00 | 0·98, 1·01 | 0·565 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 677 | 643 | 524 | 572 | |||||||
| % | 33·9 | 32·2 | 26·3 | 28·7 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·98 | 0·86, 1·12 | 0·73 | 0·63, 0·84 | 0·81 | 0·70, 0·92 | 0·97 | 0·96, 0·98 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 1·00 | 0·87, 1·15 | 0·78 | 0·67, 0·90 | 0·87 | 0·76, 1·01 | 0·98 | 0·96, 0·99 |
|
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·99 | 0·85, 1·14 | 0·84 | 0·72, 0·98 | 0·93 | 0·80, 1·08 | 0·99 | 0·97, 1·00 | 0·162 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 719 | 658 | 522 | 517 | |||||||
| % | 36·0 | 33·0 | 26·2 | 25·9 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·88 | 0·77, 1·00 | 0·61 | 0·54, 0·71 | 0·59 | 0·52, 0·68 | 0·93 | 0·92, 0·95 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·93 | 0·82, 1·07 | 0·68 | 0·59, 0·78 | 0·70 | 0·60, 0·80 | 0·94 | 0·92, 0·96 |
|
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·93 | 0·81, 1·08 | 0·74 | 0·64, 0·87 | 0·75 | 0·64, 0·88 | 0·96 | 0·94, 0·98 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 625 | 584 | 583 | 624 | |||||||
| % | 31·3 | 29·3 | 29·2 | 31·3 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 1·04 | 0·90, 1·21 | 1·02 | 0·86, 1·20 | 1·07 | 0·90, 1·26 | 1·02 | 0·95, 1·09 | 0·613 |
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·99 | 0·85, 1·15 | 0·94 | 0·79, 1·12 | 1·02 | 0·86, 1·22 | 1·00 | 0·93, 1·07 | 0·799 |
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·91 | 0·77, 1·07 | 0·88 | 0·73, 1·06 | 0·94 | 0·78, 1·13 | 0·95 | 0·88, 1·03 | 0·186 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 715 | 595 | 514 | 592 | |||||||
| % | 35·8 | 29·8 | 25·8 | 29·7 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·77 | 0·67, 0·88 | 0·62 | 0·54, 0·71 | 0·76 | 0·67, 0·87 | 0·90 | 0·86, 0·94 |
|
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·83 | 0·73, 0·96 | 0·70 | 0·61, 0·81 | 0·89 | 0·77, 1·02 | 0·93 | 0·89, 0·98 |
|
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·87 | 0·75, 1·00 | 0·75 | 0·64, 0·87 | 0·86 | 0·74, 1·00 | 0·94 | 0·90, 0·99 |
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Poor OHRQoL case | |||||||||||
| | 607 | 566 | 666 | 577 | |||||||
| % | 30·4 | 28·4 | 33·4 | 28·9 | |||||||
| Model 1 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·91 | 0·80, 1·05 | 1·11 | 0·97, 1·27 | 0·90 | 0·78, 1·03 | 1·00 | 0·98, 1·02 | 0·918 |
| Model 2 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·94 | 0·82, 1·09 | 1·09 | 0·95, 1·25 | 0·97 | 0·84, 1·12 | 1·00 | 0·98, 1·02 | 0·670 |
| Model 3 | 1·00 | Ref | 0·93 | 0·80, 1·09 | 1·07 | 0·92, 1·24 | 0·97 | 0·84, 1·13 | 1·00 | 0·98, 1·02 | 0·736 |
All values are expressed as numbers (%) or relative OR (95 % CI). All estimates were derived from the multivariable logistic regression model. Poor OHRQoL is defined as a score ≤ 50 on a validated GOHAI. Bold P-values are statistically significant (P < 0·05). The food score ranges in Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 are as follows: < 7·1, 7·1–8·9, 9·0–9·8 and ≥ 9·9 score for grain dishes, respectively; < 2·7, 2·7–4·3, 4·4–6·4 and ≥ 6·5 score for vegetable dishes, respectively; < 4·7, 4·7–7·7, 7·8–9·7 and ≥ 9·8 score for fish and meat dishes, respectively; < 0·6, 0·6–5·2, 5·3–7·7 and ≥ 7·8 score for milk, respectively; < 1·3, 1·3–3·1, 3·2–5·5 and ≥ 5·6 score for fruits, respectively; < 8·8, 8·8–9·3, 9·4–9·8 and ≥ 9·9 score for total energy intake, respectively; < 8·7, 8·7–9·5, 9·6–9·8 and ≥ 9·9 score for snacks and alcohol beverages, respectively; and < 5·8, 5·8–8·9, 9·0–9·8 and ≥ 9·9 score for white to red meat ratio, respectively. OHAI, Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index; OHRQoL, oral health-related quality of life; Ref, reference.
Linear trend P-values were calculated by using the likelihood ratio test and a continuous variable of adherence score.
Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex and population density.
Model 2 was model 1 plus adjustment for BMI, moderate physical activity, smoking status, alcohol status, education, medications, living alone, socio-economic status, green tea consumption, coffee consumption and history of disease (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, heart disease and stroke).
Model 3 was model 2 plus mutual adjustment for denture use, poor mastication, dry mouth, choking accidents, regular dental check-up and daily tooth brushing.