Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 19;22(1):980.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-03673-5.

Unhealthy oral status contributes to the older patients with cognitive frailty: an analysis based on a 5-year database

Affiliations

Unhealthy oral status contributes to the older patients with cognitive frailty: an analysis based on a 5-year database

Zhiqiong Jiang et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: Oral health is associated with the onset and deterioration of cognitive function and physical frailty, which can be improved with appropriate interventions. However, far too little attention has been paid to oral health status of elderly with cognitive frailty. The objective of this study was to investigate the oral health status and potential risk factors of elderly hospitalized patients aged 60 years or older with cognitive frailty.

Methods: The participants' assessment data derived from the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Database of hospitalized patients from The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. Data were collected from April 2016 to December 2021. All participants underwent a face-to-face assessment conducted by professional evaluators. Physical frailty was defined by Fried's criteria. Cognitive function was assessed by Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). The cognitive frailty is characterized by the simultaneous presence of at least 1 Fried's criteria and mild cognitive impairment according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition. The oral health was assessed according to 10-item Brief Oral Health Status Examination (BOHSE). The general demographic characteristics, BOHSE scores were compared between the cognitive frailty and non-cognitive frailty (control group). The score of BOHSE and ten items were included in the binary logistic regression analysis. The covariate characteristics were adjusted for a final model with a multivariate analysis.

Results: A total of 425 patients (245 females) with cognitive frailty and 491 patients (283 females) with non-cognitive frailty were enrolled in this retrospective study. Univariate analysis showed statistically significant differences in age, education level, living arrangement, diabetes, Body Mass Index (BMI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), depression between the two groups. The total BOHSE score of cognitive frailty was higher than that of the control group (4.35 ± 2.68 vs. 3.64 ± 2.60, Z = 4.07, P < 0.001). The average scores and the proportions of health changes and unhealthy states of tongue, mucosa tissue, gums, natural teeth, dentures, masticatory teeth and oral hygiene in cognitive frailty were greater than those of the control group (all P < 0.05). The binary logistical regression analysis showed that four or more natural teeth decayed or broken was independently associated with cognitive frailty after adjusting the age, gender, education level, living arrangement and BMI, PSQI, diabetes and depression (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.20-3.07, P = 0.007). Additionally, while in the chewing position, those cases with a normal-occlusal-relationship number of less than 11 pairs had a higher risk of cognitive frailty than those with 12 pairs or more.

Conclusions: The oral health status of older hospitalized patients over 60 years with cognitive frailty was worse than that of patients with non-cognitive frailty. But only four or more natural teeth decayed or broken and a reduction in chewing pairs were independent risk factors for cognitive frailty.

Keywords: Cognitive frailty; Oral health; Physical frailty; Risk factor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the participants included in the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The comparison of the total BOHSE score (a) and scoring item comparisons in detail (b) between cognitive frailty and non-cognitive frailty

Similar articles

References

    1. Panza F, Lozupone M, Solfrizzi V, et al. Different cognitive frailty models and health- and cognitive-related outcomes in older age: from epidemiology to prevention. J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;62(3):993–1012. doi: 10.3233/JAD-170963. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kelaiditi E, Cesari M, Canevelli M, et al. Cognitive frailty: rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) international consensus group. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17(9):726–34. doi: 10.1007/s12603-013-0367-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang XM, Yuan L, Guo N, et al. Cognitive frailty and falls in a national cohort of older chinese inpatients. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(8):993–8. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1670-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ma Y, Li X, Pan Y, et al. Cognitive frailty predicting death and disability in chinese older. Neurol Res. 2021;43(10):815–22. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2021.1939235. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rivan NFM, Singh DKA, Shahar S, et al. Cognitive frailty is a robust predictor of falls, injuries, and disability among community-dwelling older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):593. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02525-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types