Table 2. Adjusted relationships of tooth loss status with handgrip strength (or handgrip strength per weight).

Number of missing teeth
	0	1–2	3–5	≥6	P for trenda
Males (n = 13983)	8,400	3,265	1,592	726	-
Handgrip strength(kg)
Model 1 c	43.9 (43.7, 44.0) b	42.9 (42.7, 43.2)	41.4 (41.1, 41.8) f	38.1 (37.6, 38.6) f	< 0.0001
Model 2 d	43.3 (43.2, 43.5)	43.3 (43.1, 43.6)	42.5 (42.2, 42.8) f	39.9 (39.4, 40.4) f	< 0.0001
Model 3 e	43.6 (42.1, 45.2)	43.6 (42.0, 45.2)	42.7 (41.2, 44.3) f	40.2 (38.7, 41.8) f	< 0.0001
Handgrip strength per body weight(kg/kg)
Model 1 c	0.56 (0.56, 0.57)	0.56 (0.56, 0.56) f	0.54 (0.54, 0.55) f	0.52 (0.51, 0.53) f	< 0.0001
Model 2 d	0.56 (0.56, 0.56)	0.56 (0.56, 0.56)	0.55 (0.55, 0.56) f	0.52 (0.52, 0.53) f	< 0.0001
Model 3 e	0.57 (0.55, 0.59)	0.57 (0.55, 0.59)	0.56 (0.54, 0.58) f	0.54 (0.52, 0.56) f	< 0.0001
Female (n = 12292)	7,866	2,696	1,237	493	-
Handgrip strength(kg)
Model 1 c	25.7 (25.6, 25.8)	25.5 (25.3, 25.7) f	24.5 (24.2, 24.7) f	23.6 (23.2, 23.9) f	< 0.0001
Model 2 d	25.6 (25.5, 25.7)	25.5 (25.4, 25.7)	24.7 (24.5, 25.0) f	23.9 (23.5, 24.3) f	< 0.0001
Model 3 e	26.1 (24.9, 27.3)	26.0 (24.9, 27.3)	25.3 (24.1, 26.5) f	24.5 (23.4, 25.7) f	< 0.0001
Handgrip strength per body weight(kg/kg)
Model 1 c	0.44 (0.43, 0.44)	0.42 (0.42, 0.43) f	0.41 (0.40, 0.41) f	0.38 (0.37, 0.39) f	< 0.0001
Model 2 d	0.43 (0.43, 0.43)	0.43 (0.43, 0.43)	0.42 (0.41, 0.42) f	0.41 (0.40, 0.41) f	< 0.0001
Model 3 e	0.43 (0.41, 0.45)	0.43 (0.41, 0.45)	0.42 (0.40, 0.44) f	0.41 (0.39, 0.43) f	< 0.0001

^a Analysis of covariance.

^b Adjusted least square mean (95% confidence interval) (all such values).

^c Crude model.

^d Adjusted for age, BMI(body mass index) and WC(waist circumference).

^e Adjusted for age, BMI, WC, physical activities, metabolic syndrome, energy intake, dietary patterns, smoking status, drinking status, educational levels, employment status, family income.

^f Significantly different from the category of 0 missing teeth (Bonferroni correction): p<0.01.