Table 2.

The impact of dental status on perceived ability to eat various food types

Food type	Dental status	Could eat with some difficulty/could not eat at all			Unadjusted			Adjusteda
		n	%	OR	95% CI	P	OR	95% CI	P
Sliced bread	DEN	5	1.1	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	3	1.0	0.90	0.21, 3.79	0.885	0.78	0.18, 3.32	0.740
	E-DEN	9	3.1	2.87	0.95, 8.65	0.061	2.22	0.70, 7.04	0.174
Crusty bread	DEN	37	8.1	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	61	20.0	2.83	1.83, 4.39	< 0.001	2.57	1.65, 4.01	< 0.001
	E-DEN	72	24.8	3.74	2.44, 5.74	< 0.001	3.05	1.96, 4.77	< 0.001
Cheese	DEN	7	1.5	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	10	3.3	2.17	0.82, 5.78	0.119	2.07	0.78, 5.55	0.146
	E-DEN	11	3.8	2.52	0.97, 6.58	0.059	2.24	0.83, 6.05	0.113
Tomatoes	DEN	8	1.8	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	10	3.3	1.90	0.74, 4.87	0.182	1.81	0.70, 4.65	0.221
	E-DEN	24	8.2	5.03	2.23, 11.37	< 0.001	4.62	1.99, 10.71	< 0.001
Raw carrots	DEN	49	10.7	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	89	29.3	3.44	2.34, 5.06	< 0.001	3.30	2.23, 4.87	< 0.001
	E-DEN	117	40.8	5.72	3.92, 8.35	< 0.001	5.04	3.41, 7.45	< 0.001
Lettuce	DEN	6	1.3	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	18	5.9	4.70	1.85, 11.99	0.001	4.57	1.79, 11.70	0.002
	E-DEN	23	7.9	6.41	2.58, 15.95	< 0.001	5.99	2.35, 15.21	< 0.001
Apples	DEN	51	11.2	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	92	30.2	3.43	2.35, 5.02	< 0.001	3.31	2.26, 4.87	< 0.001
	E-DEN	121	41.4	5.62	3.87, 8.16	< 0.001	5.25	3.57, 7.73	< 0.001
Oranges	DEN	9	2.0	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	13	4.3	2.21	0.93, 5.24	0.071	2.09	0.88, 4.97	0.096
	E-DEN	26	8.9	4.87	2.25, 10.56	< 0.001	4.35	1.96, 9.66	< 0.001
Nuts	DEN	53	11.6	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	82	26.9	2.79	1.90, 4.09	< 0.001	2.63	1.79, 3.87	< 0.001
	E-DEN	104	35.7	4.22	2.90, 6.13	< 0.001	3.65	2.48, 5.38	< 0.001
Sliced cooked meats	DEN	8	1.8	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	13	4.3	2.50	1.02, 6.11	0.044	2.23	0.91, 5.48	0.081
	E-DEN	11	3.8	2.19	0.87, 5.52	0.096	1.79	0.69, 4.65	0.234
Well-cooked steaks	DEN	50	11.0	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	D-DEN	88	29.0	3.32	2.26, 4.87	< 0.001	3.07	2.08, 4.54	< 0.001
	E-DEN	103	35.5	4.46	3.05, 6.52	< 0.001	3.81	2.57, 5.65	< 0.001

Data analysed using logistic regression and presented as odd ratios (95% CI). DEN group was fixed as the reference category in each model. ^aAdjusted for age, gender and survey year