| Literature DB >> 36011504 |
Eun-Jeong Kim1, Chae-Hee Lim2, Min Eun2, Su-A Yu2, So-Min Kwon2, Jeong-Eun Lee2, Kyu-Ri Lee2, Se-Hyun Park2, Hye-Ju Lee2.
Abstract
This study aimed to verify the relationship between handgrip strength and oral health using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing Korean adults. Data from the seventh survey (2016-2018) conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were utilized, and 10,607 final study participants were recruited according to the selection and exclusion criteria. A complex sample logistic regression analysis was performed to confirm the relationship between handgrip strength and dental caries according to the sex of the study participants. On analyzing the correlation in men, "C1 (DMFT: 11-32)," when compared to "C4 (DMFT: 0-3)," in Model 1 without adjustment for potential confounders, was 2.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-3.97) times more likely to be associated with lower handgrip strength, and a statistically significant result was detected (p < 0.001). Additionally, significant odds ratios (ORs) were confirmed for all adjusted models. In women, the ORs in Model 1 without adjustment for potential confounders were 1.41 times (95% CI: 1.14-1.75) and demonstrated a significant result; however, the results were not significant in all adjusted models 2-4. Resultantly, a significant association was detected between dental caries and handgrip strength in Korean adults.Entities:
Keywords: KNHANES; dental caries; handgrip strength; oral health
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011504 PMCID: PMC9408064 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
General characteristics according to sex.
| Variables | Total (N) | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||
| 20–29 | 1316 | 643 (15.0) | 673 (11.4) |
| |
| 30–39 | 1661 | 736 (15.6) | 925 (15.3) | ||
| 40–49 | 2017 | 854 (16.7) | 1163 (19.0) | ||
| 50–59 | 2059 | 853 (18.4) | 1206 (22.5) | ||
| 60 over | 3554 | 1605 (34.3) | 1949 (31.9) | ||
| Income (4th quartile) | |||||
| Lowest quartile | 1812 | 766 (16.1) | 1046 (17.3) | 0.142 | |
| Lower middle quartile | 2661 | 1148 (24.1) | 1513 (25.1) | ||
| Upper middle quartile | 3082 | 1379 (29.6) | 1703 (28.6) | ||
| Highest quartile | 3052 | 1398 (30.2) | 1654 (29.0) | ||
| Educational level | |||||
| Primary school | 1548 | 489 (9.9) | 1059 (17.0) |
| |
| Middle school | 1193 | 515 (11.0) | 678 (11.5) | ||
| High school | 3120 | 1376 (28.9) | 1744 (30.7) | ||
| College | 4746 | 2311 (50.2) | 2435 (40.8) | ||
| Married status | |||||
| Yes | 8685 | 3618 (75.6) | 5067 (85.7) |
| |
| No | 1922 | 1073 (24.4) | 849 (14.3) | ||
| Smoking status | |||||
| None | 8642 | 3028 (65.1) | 5614 (94.6) |
| |
| Small smoker | 480 | 314 (6.8) | 166 (3.1) | ||
| Heavy smoker | 1485 | 1349 (28.1) | 136 (2.3) | ||
| Drinking status | |||||
| Yes | 7878 | 3922 (83.6) | 3956 (67.8) |
| |
| No | 2729 | 769 (16.4) | 1960 (32.2) | ||
| Physical activity | |||||
| Inactive | 9533 | 4009 (84.9) | 5524 (93.0) |
| |
| Active | 1074 | 682 (15.1) | 392 (7.0) | ||
| Hypertension | |||||
| Yes | 2340 | 1153 (24.8) | 1187 (19.0) |
| |
| No | 8267 | 3538 (75.2) | 4729 (81.0) | ||
| Diabetes | |||||
| Yes | 951 | 496 (10.4) | 455 (7.3) |
| |
| No | 9656 | 4195 (89.6) | 5461 (92.7) | ||
| Obesity | |||||
| Yes | 3644 | 1892 (39.7) | 1752 (29.0) |
| |
| No | 6963 | 2799 (60.3) | 4164 (71.0) | ||
| Daily tooth brushing | |||||
| 1≧ | 2948 | 1548 (32.9) | 1400 (23.8) |
| |
| 2 | 3903 | 1678 (35.3) | 2225 (37.7) | ||
| 3≦ | 3756 | 1465 (31.8) | 2291 (38.5) | ||
| Dental clinic visit | |||||
| Yes | 6169 | 2703 (57.2) | 3466 (58.7) | 0.142 | |
| No | 4438 | 1988 (42.8) | 2450 (41.3) | ||
| Oral examination | |||||
| Yes | 3837 | 1621 (34.4) | 2216 (37.8) |
| |
| No | 6770 | 3070 (65.6) | 3700 (62.2) | ||
| Use of electric toothbrush | |||||
| Yes | 497 | 236 (4.8) | 261 (4.8) | 0.888 | |
| No | 10,110 | 4455 (95.2) | 5655 (95.2) | ||
| Use of interdental brush | |||||
| Yes | 2007 | 757 (16.2) | 1250 (20.9) |
| |
| No | 8600 | 3934 (83.8) | 4666 (79.1) | ||
* Obtained from chi-square test. Bold type denotes statistical significance at p-value < 0.05.
Handgrip strength and dental caries according to sex.
| Variables | Male | Female | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMFT | Reduction a | Normal | Reduction a | Normal | |||
| 0–3 | 101 (23.3) | 1339 (31.9) |
| 255 (19.0) | 943 (21.2) |
| |
| 4–6 | 73 (18.6) | 940 (22.0) | 251 (19.5) | 961 (20.5) | |||
| 7–10 | 71 (15.5) | 1082 (26.1) | 362 (26.5) | 1396 (30.6) | |||
| 11–32 | 176 (42.6) | 909 (20.0) | 481 (35.0) | 1267 (27.7) | |||
* Obtained from chi-square test. Bold type denotes statistical significance at p-value < 0.05. a Cut-off value of handgrip strength (<26 kg in males and <18 kg in females).
Association between dental caries and handgrip strength according to sex.
| Model | Male | Female | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Model1 a | 2.92 | 2.15 ~ 3.97 |
| 1.41 | 1.14 ~ 1.75 |
|
| Model2 b | 2.15 | 1.56 ~ 2.96 |
| 1.22 | 0.98 ~ 1.52 | 0.129 |
| Model3 c | 1.79 | 1.29 ~ 2.47 |
| 1.18 | 0.94 ~ 1.47 | 0.387 |
| Model4 d | 1.62 | 1.17 ~ 2.26 |
| 1.16 | 0.93 ~ 1.46 | 0.452 |
| Model5 e | 1.61 | 1.15 ~ 2.26 |
| 1.16 | 0.93 ~ 1.45 | 0.481 |
| Dependent variable: handgrip strength (reference: normal). | ||||||
| Data are presented as 95% confidence intervals. | ||||||
* Obtained from Logistic regression. OR: odds ratio, a Model1: consisted of a crude association, b Model2: adjusted for age, c Model3: adjusted for age, income, educational level, married status, d Model4: adjusted for age, income, educational level, married status, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, alcohol frequency, obesity, physical activity, e Model5: adjusted for age, income, educational level, married status, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, alcohol frequency, obesity, physical activity, dental clinic visit, oral examination, daily tooth brushing, use of electric toothbrush, use of interdental brush. Bold values denotes statistical significance at p < 0.05.