Next Article in Journal
Assessing Inequity in Green Space Exposure toward a “15-Minute City” in Zhengzhou, China: Using Deep Learning and Urban Big Data
Next Article in Special Issue
A Narrative of Oral Care in Palliative Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Too Many Treats or Not Enough to Eat? The Impact of Caregiving Grandparents on Child Food Security and Nutrition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Oral Assessment and Preventive Actions within the Swedish Quality Register Senior Alert: Impact on Frail Older Adults’ Oral Health in a Longitudinal Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 10
10.3390/ijerph19105801
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relation between Masticatory Function and Nutrition in Older Individuals, Dependent on Supportive Care for Daily Living

by
Per Elgestad Stjernfeldt
1,2,*,
Gerd Faxén Irving
3,
Inger Wårdh
1,4,
Robert Lundqvist
5 and
Angelika Lantto
6
1
Department of Dental Medicine, Academic Centre for Geriatric Dentistry, Karolinska Institutet, 112 19 Stockholm, Sweden
2
Folktandvården Stockholms län AB, 118 27 Stockholm, Sweden
3
Department of Neurobiology, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Care Science and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, 141 52 Stockholm, Sweden
4
Department of Health Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
5
The Research and Innovation Unit, County of Norrbotten, 971 89 Luleå, Sweden
6
The Competence Center of Public Dental Care, County of Norrbotten, 971 28 Luleå, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(10), 5801; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105801
Submission received: 23 March 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 10 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Health among the Older Population)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: Associations between masticatory function and nutritional status have been suggested. Masticatory function can be divided into two subdomains, the objective capacity of an individual to mix solid food and the individual’s subjectively assessed ability to masticate solid food. Aim: The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between these subdomains and nutritional variables in older, care-dependent individuals. Materials and methods: From a group of 355 individuals with care dependency and functional limitations, individuals aged 60 and older were selected. By home visits, the subjects underwent an oral examination and answered chewing related questions. Nutritional status was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment. A total of 196 individuals met the age requirement of 60 years or older. Of these, 86 subjects were able to answer the questions. Results: We could not find any concluding significant associations between the subdomains of masticatory function or the nutritional variables. Conclusions: The absence of associations could be explained by the lack of standardized and validated methods to assess masticatory function and they possibly reflect varying underlying constructs. Self-reported questionnaires seem less useful among older and care-dependent individuals, while an objective clinical measurement will be needed when evaluating masticatory function.

1. Introduction

One of the primary goals of dentistry is to restore and maintain oral function, especially masticatory function in older individuals. A Swedish study in older, community-dwelling individuals dependent on supportive care for daily living found that the ability to eat, number of teeth and occlusal contacts were vital factors for oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) [1].
Masticatory function is related to food intake (choices of food items) and nutritional status, both important factors for health and well-being in older persons [2]. Malnutrition is related to compromised health and increased mortality [3], and is an important contributor to the etiology of sarcopenia and frailty [4,5]. Researchers have suggested associations between masticatory function and health conditions [6,7,8,9,10], such as nutritional status. A significant relationship between edentulism and intake of key nutrients, such as non-starch polysaccharides, protein, calcium, non-heme iron, niacin, and vitamin C, has been proposed [11]. It has also been suggested that masticatory function could affect body weight [12]. However, a review published in 2002 could only find a weak association between masticatory function and deficient dietary intake [13]. Although subsequently published studies have indicated the existence of such a relationship [14,15,16], a mapping of systematic reviews found no such evidence for nutrition and chewing difficulty [17].
Masticatory function is defined as the ability of an individual to masticate solid food [18]. This concept can be further divided into two subdomains. The first subdomain is “masticatory performance” (MP), the objective and quantifiable capacity of an individual to comminute or mix solid food. The other subdomain is “masticatory ability” (MA) and is defined as the individual’s perceived or subjectively assessed ability to masticate solid food.
These two subdomains—MP and MA—have been shown to correlate weakly or not at all [18,19,20,21], which could indicate that they are not manifestations of the same underlying construct. This would also have implications on their use as measurements for scientific and diagnostics purposes. However, these studies have been conducted in a younger population and not in older individuals with care dependency. Therefore, it would be of interest to assess the relationship between MP and MA in a care-dependent, older population, since these individuals generally have the most compromised dentition and oral health. It would also be important to look for possible relationships between masticatory function and nutritional variables, since malnutrition is common in the care-dependent, older population. This could indicate whether MP or MA should be taken into consideration when assessing nutritional status.
The aims of the present study were, therefore, to assess the relationship between MP and MA and to assess the relationship between MP and MA and nutritional variables in older, care-dependent individuals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Process

The present study is part of a cross-sectional survey, based on oral examinations and questionnaires among a group of 355 individuals with care dependency and functional limitations. These individuals were randomly selected from the register of increased financial support in Norrbotten County, Sweden, in 2015. The subjects were aged 20 to 97, the majority living in nursing homes or in group housing. They underwent an oral examination and answered chewing related questions. Their cognitive ability to complete these questions was measured using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) [22]. For participants with visual or motor impairments, the questions were completed by the study’s research assistant or care personnel/family members. They could be completed at another time and mailed back to the researchers if more time was needed.
The same examiner conducted both the clinical examinations and the other assessments (author AL).

2.2. The Study Group Participants

For the present study, data were collected from the cross-sectional survey described in Section 2.1.

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

Only participants 60 years or older were included.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Individuals who were tube fed were not included in the study.

2.3. Ethical Considerations

The original ethical approval was obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå (2013-46-31M). This ethical approval was supplemented to fulfil the present study’s aims and was approved (2019-03620, 21 June 2019). The information about the study was sent to the subjects by letter. They were assured confidentiality and that they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences. When needed, they were assisted by an advocate. Informed consent was given in writing.

2.4. Masticatory Performance

MP was assessed by the Eichner index, with and without dentures. The Eichner index is based on occlusal contacts between the premolar and molar regions [23]. These regions are divided into four supporting zones, two in the premolar, and two in the molar regions. Based on the presence or absence of intermaxillary tooth contact in these four zones, a patient is classified as belonging to one of three groups, which are further divided into ten sub-groups. In the present study, we divided the participants into the following three main groups: A, have occlusal contacts in all four posterior support zones; B, have occlusal contacts in one to three zones of contact or within the anterior area only; and C, have no occlusal contacts at all, as shown in Figure 1.

2.5. Masticatory Ability

To assess MA, items were selected from the following two questionnaires: a questionnaire from Norrbotten County, named Oral Health and Bite Function (OHaBF) [24] and the OHRQoL instrument, General Oral Health Assessment Instrument (GOHAI) [25].

2.5.1. Items from OHaBF

OHaBF covers different aspects of oral health and masticatory function. In the present study, the following items were used:
I need help with my oral health. The participant can answer yes or no.
If the answer is yes, one or more of the following items can be chosen:
Help with pain from the jaws
Help to improve my chewing function
Help to improve my speaking function
Help to improve my appearance
A further two items are answered on a scale of 1–5, from very good to very poor.
Are you able to chew adequately?
How would you rate your ability to eat food?

2.5.2. Items from GOHAI

GOHAI has in its original version 12 items. For the present study, the following items, rated on a scale from 1–5, were used.
How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures?
How often did you have trouble biting or chewing any kinds of food, such as firm meat or apples?
How often were you able to swallow comfortably?
How often were you able to eat anything without feeling discomfort?
In the analysis, we dichotomized the answers always/often and never/seldom.

2.6. Nutritional Status

Nutritional status was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) [26], a commonly used tool for nutritional screening and assessment in older people. For the present study, we used the original/total version with a max score of 30, where 24–30 points indicate normal nutritional status, 17–23.5 at risk of malnutrition and <17 malnutrition.
Specific items from the MNA tool were selected and analyzed independently. These items were as follows:
Body mass index (BMI kg/m2), which was divided into two groups, BMI < 19–21 and BMI > 21
Calf circumference (CC), which was scored as being either less or more than 31 cm
Mid-arm circumference (MAC), which was scored as being either less than 21 cm, between 21–22 cm or more than 22 cm
To explore eating habits, the following items were used:
How many main meals do you eat per day?
Do you eat two or more servings of fruit or vegetables per day?
Can you eat without assistance?

2.7. Statistical Methods

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Comparisons between the groups and variables were carried out using Chi-square tests, with the null hypothesis defined as there being no significant relationships between the variables analyzed. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.
Each MA variable was analyzed against each MP variable. Each MA and MP variable was also analyzed against each nutritional variable.

3. Results

Out of the 355 individuals, a total of 196 individuals met the age requirement of 60 years or older and were included in the present study. Of these, 110 subjects did not have the cognitive ability to answer the MA-related questions. The subjects in this group had fewer occlusal contacts. Eighty-six subjects answered the questions. Even if not statistically significant, the subjects in group Q0 were more often assessed as at risk of malnutrition and as malnourished than the subjects in group Q1. Moreover, low CC (an indicator of muscle mass) was more common in group Q0 and there was a significant difference between Q1 and Q0 concerning the Eichner index, p = 0.03 as well as the total MNA score, p = 0.016.
For the study’s participant characteristics, see Table 1.

3.1. Masticatory Performance and Masticatory Ability

There was a trend towards a positive relationship between MP and MA. A lower MP was associated with a lower MA, and correspondingly so for higher values, but without any statistically significant relationships. Eighty-eight percent of those in Eichner A group reported that they never/seldom had to limit the kinds or amounts of food they eat because of problems with their teeth or dentures, compared to B (81%) and C (77%) groups. Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide examples of this. Furthermore, no significant statistical relationship was found between the Eichner index with and without dentures, p = 0.636 and p = 0.903, respectively.
Among those with occlusal contacts in all four posterior support zones (Eichner group A), 93% answered “never/seldom” to the question “How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures?” from GOHAI. In the group with no posterior occlusal contacts at all (Eichner group C), 79% answered “never/seldom” to this question. Similarly, 90% of those belonging to group A rated their ability to chew solid food to be “good,” as compared to 77% in group C.

3.2. Masticatory Performance and Nutritional Variables

No significant relationship was found between the Eichner index and total MNA score (p = 0.704) (Figure 4) or CC (p = 0.810) and MAC (p = 0.590). However, a significant relationship was found between the Eichner index without dentures and BMI, X2 (N = 191), p = 0.015, as shown in Figure 5.

3.3. Masticatory Ability and Nutritional Variables

When we looked at the possible relationships between the items from the questionnaires and any of the nutritional items, no significant relationships were found.
These results, with the exception for the relationship between the Eichner index without dentures and BMI, confirmed the null hypothesis.

4. Discussion

In the present study, performed among older vulnerable persons with care-dependency, no associations were found between afunctional dentition and the subjectively perceived ability to chew solid food, or how the individuals subjectively perceived their functional ability. However, less than half of the individuals were able to answer the questions, which is a limitation of the study, as these individuals seemed to be the healthier part of the study material, with more occlusal contacts and higher MNA classification. Among those that answered the questions, the individuals with less occlusal contacts tended to show a lower score on the MA variables but generally, most of these individuals perceived their ability to masticate food to be as good as those who had a fully functional dentition. The majority of those in Eichner group C had, in many cases, used deficient dentures for a longer period, but contrary to what might be expected, this had not resulted in a lower MA.
The only statistically significant association was between the Eichner index without dentures and BMI. Generally, the participants that belonged to groups B and C had lower BMI scores in comparison with group A, but those in group B had the proportionally lowest BMI scores. They lack occlusal contacts, but perhaps not so many that they have asked for or received tooth replacements. They probably could be defined as frail, suffering from several diseases and functional limitations without adequate support in their daily life, including nutritional needs.
Furthermore, we did not find any statistical associations between MA and any of the nutritional variables. The individuals with deteriorated masticatory function perhaps do not consider this functional loss, since it is often slowly degraded over a long period of time. An interview study showed that older individuals often overrated their ability to chew food, since they used different coping strategies, such as preparing their meals to make them more easily chewable [27]. Residents at nursing homes with chewing difficulties usually get adapted food consistency. The fact that individuals with compromised MP tend to overestimate their ability to chew food may account for the non-association between MP and MA [28,29].
In a study using a two-color chewing gum mixing test as test food, the authors concluded that an association between lower MP and nutritional parameters could not be demonstrated [30]. In another study among older persons in nursing homes [31], where a two-color chewing gum was also used, the absence of teeth and dentures negatively affected oral function but was not associated with the residents’ nutritional status.
We included nutritional-related items from GOHAI as a part of MA. In the original population that served as a base for the present study [32], no association between the Eichner index and OHRQoL could be found. The authors even suggested better OHRQoL for participants with fewer occlusal contacts. Another study found no association between MP and MA after prosthetic rehabilitation [21] and concluded that objective measurement tests are preferable, since MA is more unpredictable. A Japanese study concluded that maintaining at least eight functional tooth units was important in reducing the likelihood of lower MA [33]. Similar results have been showed in other studies [34], but these studies were conducted in younger and healthier adults.
When discussing conflicting results from different studies, it is important to note the context in which the study was conducted, and the study population. It would be erroneous to compare results from studies using healthy, young participants with those using multi-morbid and dependent individuals. Certain items used to assess MA in a young population would not necessarily have the same validity and reliability in an older population [35]. Various authors have concluded that MA decreases with age, despite only minor changes in dental status [36] and despite improved dental state, MA exhibits only minor variation over time [37]. These findings could point to the conclusion that MA encompasses other facets, such as adaptation, eating habits and cultural aspects, that cannot be obtained from objective MP tests. However, it could be discussed whether questions concerning MA are adequate to be used in a population in which a noticeable proportion of individuals are dependent on supportive care for both medical and cognitive reasons, or if it would be better to use MP instead. Furthermore, it is questionable if it is possible to even ask such questions and expect true answers.
Our use of the Eichner index as a measurement of MP could be questioned, but studies have shown that the number of functional tooth units, together with bite force, are the key determinants of MP [38,39]. The Eichner index has not been validated extensively [40], but in the context of the present study where individuals could expect to have varying cooperation possibilities, Eichner index is easily measured at the same time as a dental examination is performed.
Generally, MP is measured through comminute tests, in which the MP is quantified by assessing how well a test food is masticated into smaller particles [18]. Another method is to assess how well a test food is mixed into a bolus, the so-called mixing test. Other methods have also been developed [38], but none of them are standardized methods or “golden standard” used to assess MP in a clinical context. The lack of established methods to assess MP, or MA, could be one reason why previous studies have yielded inconclusive and conflicting results.
To the authors’ knowledge, no standardized method has been developed to assess MA. It is usually assessed using questionnaires, some of which are specifically designed to assess MA, while others use a subset of questions from a more generalized questionnaire [18]. None of the items used in the present study have been extensively validated for measuring the construct MA, but instead are used to assess the more generalized concept of “oral health” and OHRQoL.
To measure nutritional status, we used total MNA, as we wanted to include certain items concerning eating habits that are only available in the original form. Otherwise, the short version, MNA-SF, comprising the first six questions of the original MNA, is most often used today [41].
MNA-SF is currently the most widely used and recommended tool to assess the risk of malnutrition in older people. BMI in isolation can be misleading, as some older individuals with lower masticatory function adapt by favoring easily chewable [27], or drinkable, high-fat and high-calorie food, which could conceal a lack of important nutrients. However, MNA is still a risk screening tool. According to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria for malnutrition, at least one phenotype criterion, such as weight loss or low BMI, and one etiologic criterion, such as disease burden and/or decreased food intake, are needed for diagnosis [26,42].

5. Conclusions

The absence of association between MP and MA in older, care-dependent individuals could be explained by the lack of standardized and validated methods to assess masticatory function. It is possible that MP and MA do not reflect the same underlying construct. Furthermore, we could only find a significant relationship between MP and BMI, but not with any other nutritional variables. Clinicians and staff working in nursing care also ought to reflect on whether it is adequate to ask the care takers about their ability to eat, both because of cognitive difficulties to answer and since individuals with compromised mastication tend to overrate this ability. Self-reported questionnaires seem less reliable among this vulnerable group, so an objective clinical measurement will be needed when evaluating masticatory function.

Author Contributions

P.E.S., A.L., I.W. and G.F.I. conceptualized this study. All the authors contributed to the methodology and P.E.S. and R.L. ran the formal analysis. A.L. performed the data collection and P.E.S. extracted the actual data used in the present study. All the authors contributed to the original draft preparation, writing review and editing. All authors also contributed to the visualization and data presentation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Folktandvården Stockholms län AB (Public dental health in Stockholm County) and is part of P.E.S. PhD project.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study belongs to The Research and Innovation Unit, County of Norrbotten, Sweden.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Strömberg, E.; Holmèn, A.; Hagman-Gustafsson, M.-L.; Gabre, P.; Wårdh, I. Oral health-related quality-of-life in homebound elderly dependent on moderate and substantial supportive care for daily living. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2013, 71, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Volkert, D.; Beck, A.M.; Cederholm, T.; Cruz-Jentoft, A.; Goisser, S.; Hooper, L.; Bischoff, S.C. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 10–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Agarwal, E.; Miller, M.; Yaxley, A.; Isenring, E. Malnutrition in the elderly: A narrative review. Maturitas 2013, 76, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Cruz-Jentoft, A.J.; Baeyens, J.P.; Bauer, J.M.; Boirie, Y.; Cederholm, T.; Landi, F.; Zamboni, M. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010, 39, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Clegg, A.; Young, J.; Iliffe, S.; Rikkert, M.O.; Rockwood, K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 2013, 381, 752–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Castrejon-Perez, R.C.; Borges-Yanez, S.A.; Gutierrez-Robledo, L.M.; Avila-Funes, J.A. Oral health conditions and frailty in Mexican community-dwelling elderly: A cross sectional analysis. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. de Andrade, F.B.; Lebrao, M.L.; Santos, J.L.; Duarte, Y.A. Relationship between oral health and frailty in community-dwelling elderly individuals in Brazil. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2013, 61, 809–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kamdem, B.; Seematter-Bagnoud, L.; Botrugno, F.; Santos-Eggimann, B. Relationship between oral health and Fried’s frailty criteria in community-dwelling older persons. BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lin, C.S. Revisiting the link between cognitive decline and masticatory dysfunction. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tada, A.; Miura, H. Systematic review of the association of mastication with food and nutrient intake in the independent elderly. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2014, 59, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sheiham, A.; Steele, J.G.; Marcenes, W.; Lowe, C.; Finch, S.; Bates, C.J.; Walls, A.W.G. The relationship among dental status, nutrient intake, and nutritional status in older people. J. Dent. Res. 2001, 80, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. do Nascimento TL, H.; Liberalesso, N.A.; Balbinot, H.J.; Neves, H.F. Association between underweight and overweight/obesity with oral health among independently living Brazilian elderly. Nutrition 2013, 29, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. N’Gom, P.I.; Woda, A. Influence of impaired mastication on nutrition. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002, 87, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Semba, R.D.; Blaum, C.S.; Bartali, B.; Xue, Q.L. Denture use, malnutrition, frailty, and mortality among older women living in the community. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2006, 10, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Tsai, A.C.; Chang, T.L. Association of dental prosthetic condition with food consumption and the risk of malnutrition and follow-up 4-year mortality risk in elderly Taiwanese. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2011, 15, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Huppertz, V.A.L.; van der Putten, G.J.; Halfens, R.J.G.; Schols, J.; de Groot, L. Association between Malnutrition and Oral Health in Dutch Nursing Home Residents: Results of the LPZ Study. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 948–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Astvaldsdottir, A.; Bostrom, A.M.; Davidson, T.; Gabre, P.; Gahnberg, L.; Sandborgh Englund, G.; Nilsson, M. Oral health and dental care of older persons—A systematic map of systematic reviews. Gerodontology 2018, 35, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. van der Bilt, A. Assessment of mastication with implications for oral rehabilitation: A review. J. Oral Rehabil. 2011, 38, 754–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pedroni-Pereira, A.; Marquezin, M.C.S.; Araujo, D.S.; Pereira, L.J.; Bommarito, S.; Castelo, P.M. Lack of agreement between objective and subjective measures in the evaluation of masticatory function: A preliminary study. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 184, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Takagi, D.; Watanabe, Y.; Edahiro, A.; Ohara, Y.; Murakami, M.; Murakami, K.; Hirano, H. Factors affecting masticatory function of community-dwelling older people: Investigation of the differences in the relevant factors for subjective and objective assessment. Gerodontology 2017, 34, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van der Bilt, A.; Olthoff, L.W.; Bosman, F.; Oosterhaven, S.P. Chewing performance before and after rehabilitation of post-canine teeth in man. J. Dent. Res. 1994, 73, 1677–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pfeiffer, E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1975, 23, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Eichner, K. Über eine Gruppeneinteilung der Lückengebissefür die Prothetik. Dtsch. Zahnarztl. Z. 1955, 10, 1831–1834. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lantto, A.; Lundqvist, R.; Wårdh, I. Oral Status and Prosthetic Treatment Needs in Functionally Impaired and Elderly Individuals. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 31, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Atchison, K.A.; Dolan, T.A. Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J. Dent. Educ. 1990, 54, 680–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vellas, B.; Guigoz, Y.; Garry, P.J.; Nourhashemi, F.; Bennahum, D.; Lauque, S.; Albarede, J.L. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition 1999, 15, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elgestad Stjernfeldt, P.; Faxén-Irving, G.; Wårdh, I. Masticatory ability in older individuals: A qualitative interview study. Gerodontology 2021, 38, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Carlsson, G.E. Masticatory efficiency: The effect of age, the loss of teeth and prosthetic rehabilitation. Int. Dent. J. 1984, 34, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  29. Feine, J.S.; Lund, J.P. Measuring chewing ability in randomized controlled trials with edentulous populations wearing implant prostheses. J. Oral Rehabil. 2006, 33, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aquilanti, L.; Alia, S.; Pugnaloni, S.; Coccia, E.; Mascitti, M.; Santarelli, A.; Rappelli, G. Impact of Elderly Masticatory Performance on Nutritional Status: An Observational Study. Medicina 2020, 56, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. de Medeiros, M.M.D.; Pinheiro, M.A.; de Figueredo, O.M.C.; de Oliveira, L.F.S.; Wanderley, R.L.; Cavalcanti, Y.W.; Rodrigues Garcia, R.C.M. Masticatory function in nursing home residents: Correlation with the nutritional status and oral health-related quality of life. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 1511–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lantto, A.; Lundqvist, R.; Wårdh, I. Quality of life related to tooth loss and prosthetic replacements among persons with dependency and functional limitations. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2020, 78, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Ueno, M.; Yanagisawa, T.; Shinada, K.; Ohara, S.; Kawaguchi, Y. Masticatory ability and functional tooth units in Japanese adults. J. Oral Rehabil. 2008, 35, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sarita, P.T.N.; Witter, D.J.; Kreulen, C.M.; Van’t Hof, M.A.; Creugers, N.H.J. Chewing ability of subjects with shortened dental arches. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2003, 31, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. De Vet, H.C.; Terwee, C.B.; Mokkink, L.B.; Knol, D.L. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Johansson, A.; Unell, L.; Johansson, A.K.; Carlsson, G.E. A 10-year longitudinal study of self-assessed chewing ability and dental status in 50-year-old subjects. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2007, 20, 643–645. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Osterberg, T.; Carlsson, G.E. Dental state, prosthodontic treatment and chewing ability—A study of five cohorts of 70-year-old subjects. J. Oral Rehabil. 2007, 34, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ikebe, K.; Matsuda, K.; Morii, K.; Furuya-Yoshinaka, M.; Nokubi, T.; Renner, R.P. Association of masticatory performance with age, posterior occlusal contacts, occlusal force, and salivary flow in older adults. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2006, 19, 475–481. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hatch, J.P.; Shinkai, R.S.A.; Sakai, S.; Rugh, J.D.; Paunovich, E.D. Determinants of masticatory performance in dentate adults. Arch Oral Biol. 2001, 46, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Elgestad Stjernfeldt, P.; Sjogren, P.; Wardh, I.; Bostrom, A.M. Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2019, 5, 76–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaiser, M.J.; Bauer, J.M.; Ramsch, C.; Uter, W.; Guigoz, Y.; Cederholm, T.; Sieber, C.C. Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA-SF): A practical tool for identification of nutritional status. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2009, 13, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ng, W.L.; Collins, P.F.; Hickling, D.F.; Bell, J.J. Evaluating the concurrent validity of body mass index (BMI) in the identification of malnutrition in older hospital inpatients. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 2417–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijerph 19 05801 g001 550
Figure 1. Eichner’s index, where the yellow marked teeth belong to the premolar and molar regions. A have occlusal contacts in all four posterior support zones (A1–A3); B (have occlusal contacts in one to three zones or within the anterior area only (B1–B4); and C have no occlusal contacts at all (C1–C3). The picture was taken with permission from one of the author’s thesis (AL): tooth loss and prosthetic replacements among persons with dependency and functional limitations. https://openarchive.ki.se/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10616/46169/Thesis_Angelika_Lantto.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 23 February 2022).
Figure 1. Eichner’s index, where the yellow marked teeth belong to the premolar and molar regions. A have occlusal contacts in all four posterior support zones (A1–A3); B (have occlusal contacts in one to three zones or within the anterior area only (B1–B4); and C have no occlusal contacts at all (C1–C3). The picture was taken with permission from one of the author’s thesis (AL): tooth loss and prosthetic replacements among persons with dependency and functional limitations. https://openarchive.ki.se/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10616/46169/Thesis_Angelika_Lantto.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 23 February 2022).
Ijerph 19 05801 g001
Ijerph 19 05801 g002 550
Figure 2. How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures? Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Figure 2. How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures? Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Ijerph 19 05801 g002
Ijerph 19 05801 g003 550
Figure 3. How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures? Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, while using dentures, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Figure 3. How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures? Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, while using dentures, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Ijerph 19 05801 g003
Ijerph 19 05801 g004 550
Figure 4. Total individual score of the Mini Nutritional Assessment screening tool. Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Figure 4. Total individual score of the Mini Nutritional Assessment screening tool. Participants grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding teeth. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth.
Ijerph 19 05801 g004
Ijerph 19 05801 g005 550
Figure 5. BMI of participants without dentures, grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding tooth contacts. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth. p = 0.015.
Figure 5. BMI of participants without dentures, grouped according to the Eichner index, which measures number of occluding tooth contacts. (A) = four occluding zones, (B) = one to three occluding zones or presence of occlusal contacts frontally, and (C) = no occluding teeth. p = 0.015.
Ijerph 19 05801 g005
Table
Table 1. Study’s participant characteristics. MNA = Mini Nutritional Assessment. CC = calf circumference. MAC = mid-arm circumference, a p = 0.03, b p = 0.016.
Table 1. Study’s participant characteristics. MNA = Mini Nutritional Assessment. CC = calf circumference. MAC = mid-arm circumference, a p = 0.03, b p = 0.016.
Study’s Participant CharacteristicsTotal
Included
n = 196		Answered Questions
n = 86
Group Q1		Not Answered Questions
n = 110
Group Q0
Age (yrs) mean ± SD79.7 ± 10.876.7 ± 11.481.7 ± 9.8
Female/male, n (%)119/77 (61/39)51/35 (59/41)68/42 (62/38)
Dentures, n (%)88 (45)37 (42)51 (63)
a Eichner index group
A, n322022
B, n663135
C, n983563
b MNA (0–30 p) median, range23, 14.524, 1421.6, 13.5
Normal 24–30 p, n (%)87 (45)47 (55)40 (37)
At risk 17–23.5 p, n (%)88 (45)34 (40)54 (49)
Malnourished < 17 p, n (%)19 (10)4 (5)15 (14)
BMI < 21 n (%)15 (9)2 (2)13 (12)
BMI > 21 n (%)176 (91)79 (98)97 (88)
CC < 31 cm, n (%)35 (18)8 (9)27 (25)
CC ≥ 31 cm, n (%)159 (82)78 (91)81 (75)
MAC < 21 cm, n (%) 1 (1)1 (1)0 (0)
MAC = 21–22 cm, n (%)7 (4)1 (1)6 (5)
MAC > 22 cm, n (%)187 (95)84 (98)103 (95)
Mode of feeding:
Need assistance/self-fed with difficulty/self-fed16/23/1572/3/8314/20/74
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stjernfeldt, P.E.; Faxén Irving, G.; Wårdh, I.; Lundqvist, R.; Lantto, A. The Relation between Masticatory Function and Nutrition in Older Individuals, Dependent on Supportive Care for Daily Living. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105801

AMA Style

Stjernfeldt PE, Faxén Irving G, Wårdh I, Lundqvist R, Lantto A. The Relation between Masticatory Function and Nutrition in Older Individuals, Dependent on Supportive Care for Daily Living. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(10):5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105801

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stjernfeldt, Per Elgestad, Gerd Faxén Irving, Inger Wårdh, Robert Lundqvist, and Angelika Lantto. 2022. "The Relation between Masticatory Function and Nutrition in Older Individuals, Dependent on Supportive Care for Daily Living" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 10: 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105801

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop