Table 1.
Participant Characteristics at Baseline and After Six Months (n = 114) and Drop-Outs (n = 36)
| Drop-Outs | Participant Characteristics at Baseline | Comparison Between Drop-Outs and Included Participants at Baseline (p-value) | Participant Characteristics at Six-Month Follow-Up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 82.4 (10.8) | 82.0 (9.5) | 0.559 | 82.5 (9.5) |
| Gender | ||||
| Women | 25 (69.4%) | 88 (77.2%) | 0.472 | 88 (77.2%) |
| Men | 11 (30.6%) | 26 (22.8%) | 26 (22.8%) | |
| MMSE | 20.0 (8.6) | 18.9 (8.4) | 0.338 | 17.3 (9.0) |
| Care level | ||||
| 0 | 1 (2.8%) | 3 (2.6%) | 0.491 | 2 (1.8%) |
| 1 | 2 (5.6%) | 4 (3.5%) | 3 (2.6%) | |
| 2 | 7 (9.4%) | 38 (33.3%) | 36 (31.6%) | |
| 3 | 11 (30.6%) | 35 (30.7%) | 37 (32.5%) | |
| 4 | 14 (38.9%) | 28 (24.06%) | 27 (23.7%) | |
| 5 | 1 (2.8%) | 6 (5.3%) | 9 (7.9%) | |
| Body mass index | 26.6 (5.4) | 28.0 (7.0) | 0.376 | 27.8 (6.8%) |
| Nutritional status | ||||
| Good | 27 (75.0%) | 93 (81.6%) | 0.053 | 80 (70.2%) |
| Reduced | 6 (16.7%) | 20 (17.5%) | 26 (22.8%) | |
| Bad | 3 (8.3%) | 1 (0.9%) | 8 (7%) | |
| Number of teeth | 12.8 (9.9) | 9.2 (9.6) | 0.043 | 8.9 (9.3) |
| Natural teeth | ||||
| Yes | 30 (83.3%) | 77 (67.5%) | 0.106 | 77 (67.5%) |
| No | 6 (16.7%) | 37 (32.5%) | 37 (32.5%) | |
| Treatment needs | ||||
| Yes | 31 (86.1%) | 89 (78.1%) | 0.416 | 97 (85.1%) |
| No | 5 (13.9%) | 25 (21.9%) | 17 (14.9%) | |
| Pressure | (n = 23) | |||
| Yes | 18 (78.3%) | 0 (79.5%) | 1 | 92 (80.7%) |
| No | 5 (21.7%) | 18 (20.5%) | 22 (19.3%) | |
| Total denture status | ||||
| FDP/ natural teeth | 14 (38.9%) | 31 (27.2%) | 0.236 | 31 (27.2%) |
| RDP | 8 (22.2%) | 19 (16.7%) | 17 (14.9%) | |
| CD | 9 (25.0%) | 50 (43.9%) | 44 (38.6%) | |
| ENP | 5 (13.9%) | 14 (12.3%) | 22 (19.3%) | |
| Number of functional occluding pairs | 7.7 (4.8) | 7.7 (4.7) | 0.998 | 4.9 (3.6) |
| Denture condition (n = 87/86) | ||||
| Adequate | 8 (22.2%) | 9 (33.3%) | 1 | 20 (23.3%) |
| Inadequate | 15 (41.7%) | 58 (66.7%) | 66 (76.7%) | |
| Chewing efficiency (n = 111/106) | 0.5 (0.3) | 0.6 (0.3) | 0.557 | 0.5 (0.3) |
| Subjective evaluation of chewing efficiency (n = 111/106) | ||||
| 1 | 12 (34.3%) | 45 (40.5%) | 0.409 | 49 (46.2%) |
| 2 | 4 (11.4%) | 25 (22.5%) | 16 (15.1%) | |
| 3 | 8 (22.9%) | 19 (17.1%) | 20 (18.9%) | |
| 4 | 10 (28.6%) | 20 (18.0%) | 17 (16.0%) | |
| 5 | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 4 (8%) | |
| GOHAI (n = 108) | 21.3 (3.1) | 20.5 (3.5) | 0.148 | 20.2 (3.7) |
Notes: The five categories for subjective evaluation of chewing efficiency are: 1 = chewing gum not mixed, impressions of cusps or folded once; 2 = large parts of chewing gum unmixed; 3 = bolus slightly mixed, but bits of unmixed original colour remain; 4 = bolus well mixed, but colour not uniform; 5 = bolus perfectly mixed with uniform colour. Chewing efficiency: inadequate mixing has a greater variance of hue than complete mixing. Significant p-values are marked in bold. Data are presented as means (SD) or counts (frequency).
Abbreviations: MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination; FDP, fixed dental prosthesis; RDP, removable dental prosthesis; CD, complete denture; ENP, edentulous with no prosthesis; GOHAI, Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (min: 0, max=24); n, number of participants.