2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The pertinence of oral health indicators in nutritional studies in the elderly

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
55
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
3
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the causal relationship between sarcopenia and poor OHRQoL and oral health status could not be clarified in either the present or previous studies. Poor OHRQoL and oral health status can lead to malnutrition, and decreased protein and vitamin intake are risk factors of sarcopenia . Therefore, there is a possibility that poor OHRQoL and oral health can cause sarcopenia.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the causal relationship between sarcopenia and poor OHRQoL and oral health status could not be clarified in either the present or previous studies. Poor OHRQoL and oral health status can lead to malnutrition, and decreased protein and vitamin intake are risk factors of sarcopenia . Therefore, there is a possibility that poor OHRQoL and oral health can cause sarcopenia.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subjective evaluations could also be used in surveys (Thomson, Chalmers, Spencer, & Williams, ). It was reported that xerostomia self‐perception was the main oral health related variable explaining the variations of mini nutritional assessment in elderlies (El Osta et al, ). Different questionnaires are available, such as the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) (Meirovitz, Murdoch‐Kinch, Schipper, Pan, & Eisbruch, ), the xerostomia inventory (XI) (Thomson et al, ), the Summated Xerostomia Inventory‐Dutch which is a shortened XI questionnaire (van der Putten, Brand, Schols, & de Baat, ), a dry mouth severity questionnaire (Fox, Busch, & Baum, ), and xerostomia grading validated scales (Eisbruch et al, ; Pai, Ghezzi, & Ship, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical oral examinations were then performed with a headlight with the participant seated in an ordinary chair. They were conducted according to the methods recommended by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, ) and pointed out the number of teeth ranging from 0 to 32, the number of OFU ranging from 0 to 10 (i.e., an OFU was considered as a pair of antagonist premolars and molars that had at least one contact area during maximum intercuspal position evaluated by asking the participants to clench on a 200 μm‐thick articulating paper [Kohyama, Mioche, & Bourdiol, ; El Osta et al, ]), the presence of dental erosion, the use of denture during meals (El Osta et al, ), the plaque index (O'Leary, Drake, & Naylor, ), the DMFT index (decayed, missing, filled teeth number based on 28 teeth), the periodontal index (i.e., Russell's periodontal index which was preferred to the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs, namely CPITN, because it takes tooth mobility into account [Russell, ]), and the presence of mucosal disease. For unstimulated/resting saliva (RS), participants sat at rest for at least 5 min and then swallowed all oral fluids; then they were asked to incline the head and to spit out the saliva into a polyethylene tube every time they felt like swallowing over a period of 5 min.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%