ArticleMedicine2026
Number of natural teeth and incident cognitive impairment in older Chinese adults: A longitudinal CLHLS cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the longitudinal association between baseline number of natural teeth and incident cognitive impairment among older Chinese adults in the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey and explore whether dietary diversity partially mediated this association. We included 4364 participants from the 2008 Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey who were free of cognitive impairment at baseline and had at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment through 2018. Incident cognitive impairment was defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination Score <24 at any follow-up assessment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between baseline number of natural teeth and incident cognitive impairment, with tooth count modeled both continuously per interquartile range (20 teeth) increase and categorically by quartiles. Restricted cubic spline analyses were performed to examine potential nonlinearity, and subgroup analyses with multiplicative interaction tests were conducted to assess potential effect modification. Over a median follow-up of 6 years (24,585 person-years), 1835 participants (42.0%) developed incident cognitive impairment. In the fully adjusted model, each interquartile range increase in natural teeth was associated with a lower risk of incident cognitive impairment (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78-0.95; P = .002); participants in the highest tooth-count quartile had a lower risk than those in the lowest quartile (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.70-0.93; P = .004). Restricted cubic spline analysis supported an overall association (P = .013) without evidence of nonlinearity (P = .467). Age modified the association (P for interaction = .043); the association was evident among participants aged ≥70 years (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.82) but not among those aged <70 years (HR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19). Exploratory mediation analysis suggested a small indirect effect through Dietary Diversity Score (indirect effect = 0.0012; 95% bootstrap CI: 0.0001-0.0024), accounting for approximately 9.9% of the total association. A higher baseline number of natural teeth was associated with a lower risk of incident cognitive impairment among older Chinese adults. Exploratory mediation analysis suggested that dietary diversity may account for a small part of the association between natural tooth count and mean follow-up Mini-Mental State Examination. These observational findings do not establish causality and warrant further investigation.
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.