4.7 Article

Relationship between Decreased Mineral Intake Due to Oral Frailty and Bone Mineral Density: Findings from Shika Study

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13041193

Keywords

oral frailty; bone mineral density; mineral intake; osteo-sono assessment index

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) [15H04783]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04783] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study showed that oral frailty (OF) has an impact on mineral intake and bone mineral density, and maintaining good oral function helps prevent a decrease in bone density.
The relationship between oral frailty (OF) and bone mineral density is unclear. This cross-sectional study analyzed the relationship between mineral intake and bone mineral density in middle-aged and older people with pre-oral and OF. The participants, which included 240 people aged 40 years and older, completed the three oral questions on the Kihon Checklist (KCL), which is a self-reported comprehensive health checklist, the brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ), and the osteo-sono assessment index (OSI). A two-way analysis of covariance on oral function and OSI indicated that the intake of potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, squid/octopus/shrimp/shellfish, carrots/pumpkins, and mushroom was significantly lower in the OF and low-OSI groups than in the non-OF and high-OSI groups. A multiple logistic regression analysis for OF showed that potassium, magnesium, phosphorous and carrots/pumpkins were significantly associated with OF in the low-OSI group but not in the high-OSI group. These results demonstrated that the decrease in mineral intake due to OF was associated with decreased bone mineral density, suggesting that the maintenance of oral function prevents a decrease in bone mineral density.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available