3.8 Article

Association Between Sarcopenia and Tooth Loss

Journal

ANNALS OF GERIATRIC MEDICINE AND RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 145-150

Publisher

KOREAN GERIATRIC SOC
DOI: 10.4235/agmr.2018.22.3.145

Keywords

Oral health; Sarcopenia; Tooth

Funding

  1. Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital [CKURF-201601570001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether the prevalence and extent of periodontal disease and tooth loss are increased in participants with sarcopenia. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 8,053 males (sarcopenia, 2,772; nonsarcopenia, 5,281) and 10,729 females (sarcopenia, 3,085; nonsarcopenia, 7,644) >= 18 years of age who participated in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) from 2008 to 2011 and underwent assessments of oral health and appendicular skeletal muscle mass. Muscle mass index was calculated as appendicular muscle mass divided by height squared. The cutoff values for sarcopenia were 7.0 kg/m(2) for males and 5.4 kg/m(2) for females. Results: The group with sarcopenia brushed their teeth less frequently. The presence of periodontitis was significantly higher in participants with sarcopenia (males, 30.3%; females, 45.9%) than in participants without sarcopenia (males, 18.3%; females, 17.4%) (p<0.001). The number of natural teeth was significantly lower in participants with sarcopenia. The adjusted odds ratio for sarcopenia in participants with <20 natural teeth compared to those with full dentition was 1.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-2.48) in males and 2.86 (95% CI, 2.31-3.56) in females. Subgroup analysis of the adjusted odds ratio for sarcopenia in older (>= 65 years) individuals with <20 natural teeth was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.49-2.66) in males and 2.63 (95% CI, 2.25 3.64) in females. Conclusion: Loss of the natural teeth wass significantly associated with sarcopenia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available