ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Association between occlusal supports and nutritional status in older adults: A systematic review.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Fried Frailty Phenotype With Occlusal Status, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Nutritional Status Among Older Adults Living in Long-Term Care.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Masticatory function and frailty: insights from NHANES and CHARLS.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Association between tooth retention and lower inflammatory dietary pattern in older adults.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
- Associations between oral health parameters and nutritional status in geriatric populations: An umbrella review with meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2025Review
- Association of oral health status with overweight and obesity in older adults aged ≥ 65 years- evidence from Chinese communities.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Impaired masticatory performance results in nutritional deficiencies in older adults. This systematic review aims to investigate the following clinical question (CQ): Do occlusal supports impact nutritional intake or nutritional status in older individuals? Materials and methods: An extensive systematic literature search was performed to summarize the currently available knowledge to address the CQ. The cohort and intervention studies with participants of ≧60 years old or a mean age of 65 years performed before May 2021 were included. Studies were required to measure the parameters related to occluding tooth pairs/occlusal units and food/nutrient intake and/or nutritional status. Bias risk was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies. Results: After an independent screening of 1130 initial records, 24 reports from 22 studies were included. Participants (n = 8684) in the included studies were mainly residents of nursing homes or community-dwelling individuals. Following the assessment of bias risk, it is revealed that all studies had methodological weaknesses. Over half of the studies concluded that there was an association between occlusal support and nutritional intake or status. However, it was also revealed that various confounding factors are involved in the association between occlusal support and nutrition. Conclusion: This systematic review concludes that occlusal support might be associated with nutritional intake or nutritional status in the older population, although there are methodological limitations of each study. The evidence is still insufficient, and more well-designed studies are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.