Skip to main content
Download PDF

Chewing ability and associated factors in older adults in Germany. Results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 988 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Oral well-being is an important component of general well-being and quality of life, as it is greatly influenced by the ability to chew and speak, and thus by central factors of social interaction. Because quality of life and participation are important factors for health in older age, the aim of this article was to examine the chewing ability, including associated factors, for the older population in Germany on the basis of a nationally representative sample.

Methods

Database is the German Health Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS), a population based cross-sectional survey of the Robert Koch Institute. In the telephone interview, participants aged 55 years and older were asked: “Do you have difficulty biting and chewing on hard foods such as a firm apple? Would you say ‘no difficulty’, ‘some difficulty’, ‘a lot of difficulty’ or ‘cannot do at all/ unable to do’?” Prevalences and multivariate prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) from log-Poisson regressions. Sociodemographic, health-, behavioral- and care-related characteristics were investigated as associated factors.

Results

The analyses were based on data from 12,944 participants (7,079 women, 5,865 men). The proportion of people with reduced chewing ability was 20.0%; 14.5% had minor difficulty, 5.5% had major difficulty. There were no differences between women and men. The most important associated factors for reduced chewing ability were old age (PR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5–2.1), low socioeconomic status (PR 2.0, 95% CI 1.7–2.5), limitations to usual activities due to health problems (PR 1.9, 1.6–2.2), depressive symptoms (PR 1.7, 1.5–2.1), daily smoking (PR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–1.8), low dental utilization (PR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and perceived unmet needs for dental care (PR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5–2.1).

Conclusions

One fifth of adults from 55 years of age reported reduced chewing ability. Thus, this is a very common functional limitation in older age. Reduced chewing ability was associated with almost all investigated characteristics. Therefore, its prevention requires a holistic view in the living environment and health care context of older people. Given that chewing ability influences quality of life and social participation, maintaining or improving chewing ability is important for healthy aging.

Peer Review reports

Background

Oral health is an essential component of general health and of great importance for quality of life and well-being [1]. Oral diseases such as caries and periodontitis can lead to oral impairments such as tooth loss and poorly fitting dentures [2]. Oral impairments can in turn be associated with discomfort and functional limitations, such as chewing disability [2]. Chewing ability is a general term that refers to the ability to put food into the mouth and bite, chew, and swallow it [3]. Functional limitations can in turn affect dietary choices and nutritional intake and therefore have consequences for general health [4]. In addition, functional limitations may go along with disinterest in eating with others due to discomfort [2]. Therefore, chewing ability can influence quality of life and social participation and thus is a very important factor for health in older age [2].

The chewing ability of older adults has been studied internationally [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. The results show that reduced chewing ability increases with age [5, 9, 15,16,17, 19, 23], and that adults with low education or low income are more likely to have reduced chewing ability than those with high education or high income [5, 16, 17, 23, 27]. Regarding gender differences, the available results are inconsistent, showing either no differences [7, 9, 11, 15] or that women are more frequently affected by reduced chewing ability than men [5, 10, 16, 23]. In addition, a variety of further associated factors for reduced chewing ability have been identified, such as tooth loss [7, 9, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 23], tooth ache [5, 16, 21, 23, 24], limitations to daily activities [5, 8, 10, 11, 17], cognitive impairment [6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18], depression [5, 7, 10, 25], lower health-related and oral health-related quality of life [5, 8, 9, 13, 20, 24, 27, 28], underweight [8, 12], poorer nutritional status (e.g. preference for food of soft consistency, lower food variety, lower fruit and vegetable consumption) [7, 15, 22, 26], daily smoking [11, 14, 17], lower utilization of dental services [23, 26], unmet need for dental care [29], and lower self-care [5, 17].

The majority of the studies cited above on chewing ability and its associated factors were conducted in the Asian region [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, 30, 31], followed by South America [15,16,17], and Anglo-Saxon countries [20,21,22,23]. However, the number of studies available from Europe is limited [18, 19]. The objective of this article is to examine the chewing ability and its associated factors among older adults in Germany, addressing a gap in the existing research. Furthermore, this study investigates various characteristics as potential associated factors, including gender, age, socioeconomic status (SES), limitations to usual activities due to health problems, underweight, depressive symptoms, daily smoking, daily fruit and vegetable consumption, dental utilization, perceived unmet needs for dental care, and home care service utilization. By analyzing these factors, this publication aims to provide insights into the chewing ability of older adults in Germany and its relationship with the aforementioned characteristics.

Methods

Study design and sample

Database is the German Health Update (GEDA), which is a nationwide representative cross-sectional survey of the resident population in Germany [32]. GEDA is conducted by the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin as part of the population-based health monitoring on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Health. Since 2008, different GEDA waves have been realized. The questionnaire of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) [33] has been fully integrated in the GEDA study since the 2014/2015 wave [34]. Database for this analysis is the GEDA wave that took place between April 2019 and September 2020 as a telephone survey using a computer assisted, fully structured interview (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview, CATI) [35]. In GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, a total of 23,001 persons aged 15 years and older were interviewed. The response rate of 22.0% was calculated according to the standards of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR, RR3) [35, 36]. The questionnaire of GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS consists of four sections on the following areas: health status, health care, health determinants as well as demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the participants.

Outcome variable

Chewing ability

Participants aged 55 years and older were asked: “Do you have difficulty biting and chewing on hard foods such as a firm apple? Would you say – ‘no difficulty’, ‘some difficulty’, ‘a lot of difficulty’ or ‘cannot do at all/unable to do’.” For the analyses, the four response options were regrouped into three categories: no difficulty, minor difficulty (‘some difficulty’) and major difficulty (‘a lot of difficulty’ and ‘cannot do at all/unable to do’). In a first step, the proportion of people who have minor or major difficulty is reported (minor and major difficulty separated). In a second step, the proportion of people who have any difficulty is shown (minor and major difficulty together). To investigate chewing ability in a more differentiated way, sociodemographic characteristics as well as health-, behavior- and care-related factors were used for stratification.

Sociodemographic factors

Gender

GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS used gender identities to describe gender differences and allowed the respondents to indicate which gender they feel they belong to [37].

Age

For the analyses, the age groups were divided according to the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) [38]: 55–64 years, 65–74 years, and 75 years and older.

Socioeconomic status (SES)

The SES of participants is based on a multidimensional additive index that includes information on educational level (CASMIN educational classification [39]), income situation, and occupational status [40, 41].

Health-related factors

Limitations to usual activities due to health problems

Participants were asked: “Are you limited because of a health problem in activities people usually do? Would you say you are – ‘severely limited’, ‘limited but not severely’ or ‘not limited at all’?” Persons who answered that they are ‘severely limited’ or ‘limited but not severely’ were then asked: “Have you been limited for at least the past 6 months?” The response categories were “yes” and “no” [42]. Participants who answered that they were “severely limited” or “limited but not severely” in their usual activities for over 6 months are considered as limited due to health problems [43].

Underweight

There is no universally accepted definition of malnutrition in older age. In the guideline of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM), malnutrition is defined as an unintentional noticeable weight loss (> 5% in three months or > 10% in six months) or a significantly reduced body mass (Body Mass Index, BMI < 20 kg/m2) [44]. In this definition, the DGEM refers to a group of people with an average age of at least 65 years. The mean age of the present study population is 69 years (min: 55 years, max: 99 years; Std. dev.: 9,07). In GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, BMI can be calculated based on self-reported data on body weight and height. Body weight was assessed by the question: “How much do you weigh without clothes and shoes? Please state your body weight in kilograms.” Body height was ascertained by asking: “How tall are you when you are not wearing shoes?” The information was given in centimeters. Following the guideline of DGEM, underweight is defined in this article as a BMI < 20 kg/m2.

Depressive symptoms

A country-specific version of the internationally established 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) [45] was used to assess depressive symptoms [46]. The PHQ-8 comprises symptoms of a major depression during the last two weeks in line with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, 4th edition [47]): depressed mood, diminished interest, significant weight loss or poor appetite, insomnia or hypersomnia, psychomotor agitation or retardation, fatigue or loss of energy, feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt, diminished ability to think or concentrate. Each of these items was rated on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all), 1 (on individual days), 2 (more than half of the days) to 3 (nearly every day). Answers are summarized to a total score and a depressive symptomatology is assumed from a value of at least 10. While values between 10 and 14 indicate a ‘mild’ depressive symptomatology, values greater 14 point to a ‘moderate to severe’ depressive symptomatology [45].

Behavior-related factors

Daily smoking

Participants were asked: “Do you smoke any tobacco products (excluding electronic cigarettes or similar electronic devices)?” The response categories were “yes, daily”, “yes, occasionally”, “no longer” and “I’ve never smoked”. For the analyses the last three categories were combined. Thus, a distinction can be made between daily and not daily tobacco smoking [48].

Daily fruit and vegetable consumption

Participants were asked: “How often do you eat fruit? Frozen, dried, canned, etc. fruits should be included. But any fruit juices should be excluded.” and “How often do you eat vegetables or salad? Frozen, dried, canned, etc. vegetables should be included. But any kind of vegetable juices or soups (warm and cold) should be excluded.” The response categories for each question were “once or more a day”, “4 to 6 times a week”, “1 to 3 times a week”, “less than once a week” and “never” [49]. In order to be able to indicate a daily fruit and vegetable consumption, the data were summarized and the 5-point response scale was dichotomized into “daily” vs. “not daily”. Persons who did not answer one of these two questions were excluded from the analyses.

Care-related factors

Dental utilization

Participants were asked: “When was the last time you visited a dentist or orthodontist on your own behalf (that is, not while only accompanying a child, spouse, etc.)? Would you say – ‘less than 6 months’, ‘6 to less than 12 months’, ‘12 months or longer’ or ‘never’.” The first and the last two categories were combined for the analyses. In this way, the indicator of the 12-month prevalence of dental utilization (yes/no) is obtained [50].

Perceived unmet needs for dental care

Participants were asked: “Has it happened in the last 12 months that you needed one of the following examinations or treatments but could not afford them?” The answers options included: “dental or orthodontic examination or treatment”. The answer categories were “yes”, “no” and “no need”. Persons who had no need were excluded from the analyses [51].

Home care service utilization

Participants were asked: “In the past 12 months, have you yourself used or received any home care services?” Only services provided by professional health or social workers should be included. The response categories were “yes” and “no”.

Statistical analysis

The results are presented as prevalences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and stratified by sociodemographic as well as health-, behavior- and care-related factors. Multivariate log-Poisson regression models with dichotomized chewing ability as the dependent outcome variable were applied to determine whether the differences between groups are significant. Prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% CI were calculated as effect estimates for reduced chewing ability. Regression analyses for women and men combined were adjusted for gender, age, and SES, regression analyses for women and men separately for age and SES. Finally, a log-Poisson regression model with all stratification characteristics considered in this article was calculated (multivariate overall model). A significant difference between groups is assumed if the calculated p-value is < 0.05.

The analyses were carried out using a weighting factor to correct for deviations of the sample from the population structure. Design weighting was first carried out for the different selection probabilities (mobile and landline) [52]. This was followed by an adjustment to the official population figures based on age, sex, residential structure (Federal Statistical Office 2019), and education distribution (Microcensus 2017) [35]. All analyses were conducted with the survey procedures for complex samples of StataSE 17.0.

Results

The analyses were based on information from 12.985 participants aged 55 years and older, including 7,086 women and 5,871 men (Table 1). 28 respondents provided a different gender identity to the one that they were assigned at birth or gave no information. Due to the limited number, these individuals were not considered in the gender stratified analyses. However, they remained in the total category.

Table 1 Characteristics of the study population
Full size table

Of the 12,985 participants, 12,972 had valid information on the outcome variable of chewing ability. The different numbers of missing data for the variables gender, age, SES, limitations to usual activities due to health problems, underweight, depressive symptoms, daily smoking, daily fruit and vegetable consumption, dental utilization, perceived unmet needs for dental care, and home care service utilization, resulted in different number of cases for each outcome (Table 1).

Figure 1 shows that 20.0% of respondents aged 55 years and older had reduced chewing ability – 14.5% reported minor difficulty and 5.5% reported major difficulty.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Reduced chewing ability1 according to sociodemographic factors in persons aged 55 years and older. 1Minor and major difficulty separated

Full size image

Sociodemographic factors

There were no statistically significant differences in chewing ability between women and men (Table 2). In addition, reduced chewing ability increased significantly with increasing age (p < 0.001): while in the age group 55 to 64 years about one in seven reported reduced chewing ability (15.3%), it was about one in four in the age group 75 years and older (26.3%). Moreover, the proportion of adults having reduced chewing ability increased with decreasing SES. Overall, the risk of reporting reduced chewing ability was increased by a factor of 1.9 in adults with medium SES, and by a factor of 3.1 in adults with low SES compared to those with high SES (p < 0.001). Here, adults with low and high SES differed particularly strong in terms of major difficulty (Figure 1): the proportion of people with major difficulty was five times higher among those with low than with high SES (9.8% and 1.9%).

Table 2 Reduced chewing ability1 according to sociodemographic factors in persons aged 55 years and older
Full size table

Health-related factors

Adults aged 55 years and older who had reduced chewing ability were more likely to have limitations in usual activities due to health problems and depressive symptoms compared to persons of the same age without such difficulties (Table 3). For all associations, the PR was slightly above 2 for women and men (p < 0.001). This was also true for the PR of underweight in men while the relationship in women was less pronounced (PR 1.3; p = 0.041).

Table 3 Reduced chewing ability1 according to health-related factors in persons aged 55 years and older
Full size table

Behavior-related factors

Compared to the reference group, adults aged 55 years and older with reduced chewing ability were more likely to smoke daily and to have non-daily fruit and vegetable consumption (Table 4). The association between reduced chewing ability and daily smoking was particularly strong in men: while every third man reported smoking daily in the group with reduced chewing ability (34.8%), it was only every sixth man in the group without such difficulties (15.5%). Overall, the risk of reduced chewing ability was increased by a factor of 2.4 in men who smoked daily compared to men who did not (p < 0.001).

Table 4 Reduced chewing ability1 according to behavior-related factors in persons aged 55 years and older
Full size table

Care-related factors

Women and men aged 55 years and older who had reduced chewing ability were less likely to have visited a dental practice in the year prior to the survey and they were more likely to have unmet dental care needs; they were also more likely to use a home care service compared to those of the same age without difficulties (Table 5). For all care-related factors, the relation with reduced chewing ability was comparably strong (PR between 1.4 and 1.9; p < 0.001 in each case).

Table 5 Reduced chewing ability1 according to care-related factors in persons aged 55 years and older
Full size table

Multivariate overall model

When all stratification characteristics were included in one model, the most important associated factors of reduced chewing ability in adults from 55 of age were: old age (75 years and older, PR 1.8), low SES (PR 2.0), limitations to usual activities due to health problems (PR 1.9), depressive symptoms (PR 1.7), daily smoking (PR 1.6), low dental utilization (PR 1.6), and perceived unmet needs for dental care (PR 1.7). This applied to both women and men (Table 6).

Table 6 Reduced chewing ability1 according to all considered stratification characteristics
Full size table

Discussion

The results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS show that 20.0% of adults from 55 years of age reported reduced chewing ability. Of these, 14.5% had minor difficulty and 5.5% had major difficulty. The international studies cited in the introduction provide prevalences that deviate from the present results [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Reasons for this are, for example, differences in the considered age groups or differences in the operationalization of the indicator. The question used to determine chewing ability varied in the studies: The majority of them asked about chewing [5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 13,14,15, 17, 18, 20, 24], only a few, as in the present one, asked about chewing and biting [22, 29].

In the context of varying prevalences of oral health parameters between countries, socio-cultural aspects also play a role in influencing oral health, such as insufficient exposure to fluoride or difficult access to oral and dental care products [53]. Therefore, studies from Germany are particularly relevant for an interpretation of the present results. The German Oral Health Study from the Institute of German Dentists provides both survey data and clinical data on the oral health of the population in Germany [54]. In this study, data on the oral health of selected age groups are collected. According to the data from the fifth survey (2014), 31.3% of 65- to 74-year-olds had reduced chewing ability. In GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, the corresponding figure is 18.8%. However, a direct comparison of the results is not possible, for example, due to the different question and answer categories. The question asked in the German Oral Health Study was “Do you have difficulty chewing solid food (e.g. fruit, bread, meat, etc.)?” with the response options “not at all”, “a little”, “partly”, “relatively strong” and “very strong/makes great difficulties” [54]. Even though the results are not directly comparable, both studies indicate a higher proportion of older adults who have reduced chewing ability. In a study examining the probability to bite and chew hard foods in older adults from 14 European countries, Germany was ranked 5th, i.e. in the upper midfield [55].

Factors associated with reduced chewing ability among women and men were old age, low SES, limitations to usual activities due to health problems, depressive symptoms, daily smoking, low dental utilization, and perceived unmet needs for dental care. Thus, the present results are in line with the above-mentioned international studies [5, 7,8,9,10,11, 14,15,16,17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 29]. The finding that more people are affected by reduced chewing ability with increasing age is supported by the fact that oral diseases and oral impairments, which in turn can lead to functional limitations such as chewing disability, occur more frequently with increasing age [56]. The social gradient observed in reduced chewing ability, which disadvantages individuals with low SES, is similarly evident in the occurrence of oral diseases and oral impairments [56]. Moreover, adults who smoke daily were more likely to have reduced chewing ability than non-daily smokers. Oral diseases and oral impairments are more common in smokers than in non-smokers, as smoking damages the oral cavity in many ways due to the pollutants contained in tobacco smoke [57]. People who did not visit a dental office in the year prior to the survey were, as expected, more likely to report reduced chewing ability than those with appropriate utilization. Regular dental visits can detect oral diseases at an early stage and suitable measures can be initiated to prevent oral impairments and functional limitations [58]. Beyond that, adults who stated that they needed dental care but could not afford it were more likely to have reduced chewing ability than those without such problems. Financial reasons are the most common cause why necessary dental treatments are not perceived [59]. In addition, the results illustrate a relationship between reduced chewing ability and limitations to usual activities due to health problems. In this context, one study indicated that older people who are still active tend to be more motivated to maintain their oral health and have less difficulty brushing their teeth and attending dental check-ups [7]. Additionally, older people who are still active are generally mentally fitter and thus better able to understand oral health-related information [7]. The results also suggest a relationship between reduced chewing ability and depressive symptoms as screened by the PHQ-8, which measures symptoms including depressed mood, decreased interest, fatigue, and loss of energy [45]. One possible explanation for this association could be that affected people are unable to take adequate care of their oral health due to their mental state [60]. Furthermore, studies show that chewing ability also influences food choices, which in turn can affect diet and body weight [7, 8, 22, 26]. In the present study, however, the association between reduced chewing ability and non-daily fruit and vegetable consumption and underweight, respectively, was significant only in the univariate but not in the multivariate model. The same applied to the association between reduced chewing ability and the utilization of home care services. In contrast, other studies suggest that reduced chewing ability is associated with lower self-care [5, 17]. In future, longitudinal studies focusing on the effect of the considered characteristics on chewing ability are required to show possible causal relationships [25].

The present analyses point to prevention potentials and healthcare needs. In order to develop tailor-made prevention measures, it is important to identify vulnerable groups. According to the results, especially people from 75 of age and those with low SES reported reduced chewing ability. In addition, the results show that daily smoking is associated with reduced chewing ability. Dentists play an important role in communicating recommendations for health behavior change to improve or maintain oral health [57, 61]. This includes giving information on regulations on co-payments and fixed allowances for dental treatments in an understandable way. It is important that co-payments for dental treatment can be financed in order to address unmet needs for dental care and eventually reduce social inequalities in oral health [59]. In Germany, people with statutory health insurance who have at least one dental check-up a year have lower co-payments. The finding that people without annual dental visit more often had reduced chewing ability leads to the question of how these people can be better reached. General practitioners could contribute to this by motivating their patients to visit the dental practice more often [56, 62]. The same applies to home care services, which should encourage and help their patients to visit the dentist regularly [56]. An expert standard for the promotion of oral health in nursing care was recently published in Germany [63]. Beneficial outcomes of home visiting programs in order to maintain health and autonomy of older individuals were reported inconsistently in literature, either reporting reduction of disability burden [64], or no health effects at all [65]. Adversely, oral health care programs may contribute to an improvement of daily activities in older patients requiring home nursing care, by recovering or maintaining dental health or occlusal support by preventing tooth loss [66, 67]. In Germany, the AuB-concept was founded in 2010 by the Federal Dental Association and the Federation of Panel Dentists [68]. This concept was the first to systematically address the care of vulnerable patient groups who usually have poorer oral health compared to the general population like older immobile individuals, and people with disabilities. This concept led to new billing codes as additional remuneration for the required outreach to insured persons by the Statutory Health Insurance Structure Act, which came into force in 2012, thus enabling professional oral health care for home care recipients or nursing home residents by dentists, working in private practices. A comprehensive community-based oral health care by public health dentists, who are working in community health authorities, is not yet a mandatory task in Germany.

A study on the relationship between childhood circumstances and chewing ability in adulthood was able to show that socioeconomic and behavioral factors in childhood have lasting effects on chewing ability in middle and later adulthood [69]. This underlines the importance of regular prevention interventions that start early to promote oral health and oral health behavior [70, 71]. Here, special attention should be paid to individuals from socially disadvantaged backgrounds because they are more likely to have an unhealthy lifestyle (e.g. daily smoking) [48] and they have a lower control-oriented dental utilization than those of middle and high SES [72, 73]. Maintaining dental health in childhood is of great importance because damage to permanent teeth is irreversible and affects oral health in all following life stages [74]. Due to their extensive preventive programs and their outreach care in nursing and elementary schools as well as in colleges, community-based Public Dental Health Services in Germany have a crucial impact concerning the amelioration of population-based dental health care measures, by empowering children to perform an adequate oral hygiene, in order to maintain their teeth healthy, independently from their social background [75]. Thus, the strengthening of Dental Public Health measures in childhood might be a useful step towards an increase in social justice and equal health opportunities in Germany, eventually benefiting all age groups into high adulthood.

The present study has some strengths and limitations that need to be discussed. This article is the first to comprehensively analyze the chewing ability, including associated factors, in older people based on data from a sample representative of the population in Germany. The high number of participants in GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS allows stratification according to various characteristics and thus a detailed examination of chewing ability in selected subgroups. However, participation rates in older people are lower compared to the general population, and persons affected by health limitations are less likely to participate in health surveys [76, 77]. Beyond that, people living in residential facilities or nursing homes were not included in the survey. This can result in selective non-participation and consequently under-representation and bias of the results (selection bias) [78]. Regarding the indicator on utilization, which asks about dental and orthodontic visits, it should be noted that in Germany orthodontic treatment is not a standard treatment in adulthood. Statutory health insurance covers dental visits, but orthodontic treatment only up to the age of 18 and merely from a certain degree of severity [79]. It can therefore be assumed that participants reported almost exclusively dental visits. In addition, this article was able to show that reduced chewing ability is associated with self-reported unmet needs for dental care. However, it is unclear what kind of dental treatment the respondents could not afford. This would be important information, as in Germany the amount of costs for these treatments can certainly vary [80]. Moreover, it is important to note that functional limitations such as reduced chewing ability are an integral component of the broader concept of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) [81] that can be assessed, for example, with the OHIP-5 (Oral Health Impact Profile) [82]. As mentioned in the introduction, international studies indicate a strong relationship between chewing ability and OHRQoL [9, 20, 24, 27, 28]. In GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, no information on OHRQoL is available. Therefore, corresponding analyses are still pending for Germany.

Chewing, as well as mastication, were often used as synonyms in literature for the procedure of processing food during dietary intake [83,84,85,86,87]. The Glossary of Prosthetic Terms defines mastication ‘as the process of chewing food for swallowing and digestion’ [88]. Based on this definition, chewing may be considered as one active element among others, which are subsumed under the umbrella term ‘mastication’. The ability to process food properly may be impaired by a multitude of parameters, including chewing, eating and saliva disorders, deterioration of oral motor skills, the oral health status, or oral pain, as published in a systematic review [89]. In this publication, masticatory dysfunction was subsumed under the generic term ‘deterioration of oral motor skills’, while chewing difficulties were classified under ‘chewing, eating and saliva disorders’, thus displaying a clear separation between the terms ‘chewing difficulties’ and ‘masticatory dysfunction’. Again, this insight may be seen as a further example for a current lack of consensus among researchers on the exact classification or use of semantics concerning the terms ‘mastication’ and ‘chewing’, as stated in literature [90]. In order to simplify the decision on the correct terminology, and due to the obviously homologous use of both terms in a certain number of publications, as well as with respect to the wording of the questioning in the survey, the term ‘chewing ability’ was used in the present publication.

Conclusion

Based on nationwide, representative survey data, the present study is the first to examine the chewing ability, including associated factors, in older adults in Germany. Thus, this article fills a gap, as there are very few studies from Europe on this topic. According to the results, one in five adults from 55 of age had reduced chewing ability. In this respect, this is a very common functional limitation in older age. Reduced chewing ability was associated with old age, low SES, limitations to usual activities due to health problems, depressive symptoms, daily smoking, low dental utilization, and perceived unmet needs for dental care. Therefore, its prevention requires a holistic consideration of the living environment and health care context of older people. Given that chewing ability influences quality of life and social participation [2], maintaining or improving chewing ability is important for healthy aging [8].

Data availability

The authors state that some access restrictions apply to the data on which the results are based. The dataset cannot be made publicly available because the informed consent of the study participants does not cover the public provision of the data. The minimal dataset underlying the results is archived at the Research Data Center of the Robert Koch Institute and can be accessed by researchers upon reasonable request. Data access is available on-site at the Secure Data Center of the Robert Koch Institute Research Data Center. Requests can be made by e-mail to fdz@rki.de.

Abbreviations

AAPOR:

American Association for Public Opinion Research

BMI:

Body Mass Index

CATI:

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

DGEM:

German Society for Nutritional Medicine

DSM-IV:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

EHIS:

European Health Interview Survey

GEDA:

German Health Update

PHQ-8:

Patient Health Questionnaire

PR:

Prevalence ratios

SES:

socioeconomic status

WHO:

World Health Organization

95% CI:

95% confidence intervals

References

  1. World Health Organization: Oral health. Key facts. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health. Accessed 21 July 2023.

  2. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health. 1998;5:3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akifusa S, Izumi M. Chewing ability. In: Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging. Volume 1, edn. Edited by Gu D, Dupre ME: Springer Cham; 2021: 929–933.

  4. Walls AW, Steele JG. The relationship between oral health and nutrition in older people. Mech Ageing Dev. 2004;125(12):853–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cho MJ, Kim EK. Subjective chewing ability and health-related quality of life among the elderly. Gerodontology. 2019;36(2):99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim MS, Han DH. Does reduced chewing ability efficiency influence cognitive function? Results of a 10-year national cohort study. Med (Baltim). 2022;101(25):e29270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kimura Y, Ogawa H, Yoshihara A, Yamaga T, Takiguchi T, Wada T, Sakamoto R, Ishimoto Y, Fukutomi E, Chen W, et al. Evaluation of chewing ability and its relationship with activities of daily living, depression, cognitive status and food intake in the community-dwelling elderly. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013;13(3):718–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee IC, Yang YH, Ho PS, Lee IC. Chewing ability, nutritional status and quality of life. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(2):79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen TC, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Gerritsen AE, Creugers NH. Chewing ability and dental functional status. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24(5):428–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park K, Hong GS. Predictors of chewing ability among community-residing older adults in Korea. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(1):78–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shin SM. Associations of food-chewing discomfort with health behaviors and cognitive and physical health using pooled data from the Korean health panel (2010–2013). Nutrients. 2020;12(7):2105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Song IS, Han K, Ryu JJ, Park JB. Association between underweight and tooth loss among Korean adults. Sci Rep. 2017;7:41524.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Takata Y, Ansai T, Awano S, Fukuhara M, Sonoki K, Wakisaka M, Fujisawa K, Akifusa S, Takehara T. Chewing ability and quality of life in an 80-year-old population. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(5):330–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ansai T, Takata Y, Soh I, Akifusa S, Sogame A, Shimada N, Yoshida A, Hamasaki T, Awano S, Fukuhara M, Takehara T. Relationship between chewing ability and 4-year mortality in a cohort of 80-year-old Japanese people. Oral Dis. 2007;13(2):214–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baumgarten A, Schmidt JG, Rech RS, Hilgert JB, Goulart BNG. Dental status, oral prosthesis and chewing ability in an adult and elderly population in southern Brazil. Clin (Sao Paulo). 2017;72(11):681–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. de Rossi Figueiredo D, Peres MA, Luchi CA, Peres KG. [Chewing impairment and associated factors among adults]. Rev Saude Publica. 2013;47(6):1028–38.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gellacic AS, Teixeira DS, Antunes JL, Narvai PC, Lebrao ML, Frazao P. Factors associated with deterioration of self-rated chewing ability among adults aged 60 years and older over a 6-year period. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(1):46–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lexomboon D, Trulsson M, Wardh I, Parker MG. Chewing ability and tooth loss: association with cognitive impairment in an elderly population study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(10):1951–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Unell L, Johansson A, Ekback G, Ordell S, Carlsson GE. Dental status and self-assessed chewing ability in 70- and 80-year-old subjects in Sweden. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(9):693–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brennan DS, Spencer AJ, Roberts-Thomson KF. Tooth loss, chewing ability and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(2):227–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh KA, Brennan DS. Chewing disability in older adults attributable to tooth loss and other oral conditions. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):106–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bradbury J, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ, Walls AW, Mulvaney CE, Allen PF, Moynihan PJ. Perceived chewing ability and intake of fruit and vegetables. J Dent Res. 2008;87(8):720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peek CW, Gilbert GH, Duncan RP. Predictors of chewing difficulty onset among dentate adults: 24-month incidence. J Public Health Dent. 2002;62(4):214–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khalifa N, Allen PF, Abu-bakr NH, Abdel-Rahman ME. Chewing ability and associated factors in a Sudanese population. J Oral Sci. 2013;55(4):349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hwang SH, Park SG, Min JY. Relationship between chewing ability and depressive symptoms. Community Dent Health. 2013;30(4):254–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Natapov L, Kushnir D, Goldsmith R, Dichtiar R, Zusman SP. Dental status, visits, and functional ability and dietary intake of elderly in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018;7(1):58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Liang YH, Chou C, Chen YJ, Chou YF, Lin CY, Chou C, Wang TF. Impact of periodontal Disease and chewing ability on the quality of life of the elderly in an affluent community. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020;119(11):1693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim HY, Jang MS, Chung CP, Paik DI, Park YD, Patton LL, Ku Y. Chewing function impacts oral health-related quality of life among institutionalized and community-dwelling Korean elders. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009;37(5):468–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Listl S. Cost-related dental non-attendance in older adulthood: evidence from eleven European countries and Israel. Gerodontology. 2016;33(2):253–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim EK, Lee SK, Choi YH, Tanaka M, Hirotsu K, Kim HC, Lee HK, Jung YS, Amano A. Relationship between chewing ability and cognitive impairment in the rural elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;70:209–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Motokawa K, Mikami Y, Shirobe M, Edahiro A, Ohara Y, Iwasaki M, Watanabe Y, Kawai H, Kera T, Obuchi S, et al. Relationship between chewing ability and nutritional status in Japanese older adults: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lange C, Jentsch F, Allen J, Hoebel J, Kratz AL, von der Lippe E, Müters S, Schmich P, Thelen J, Wetzstein M, et al. Data Resource Profile: German Health Update (GEDA) – the health interview survey for adults in Germany. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):442–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eurostat. European Health Interview Survey (EHIS wave 3) - Methodological manual – 2018 edition. In. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.

  34. Lange C, Finger JD, Allen J, Born S, Hoebel J, Kuhnert R, Müters S, Thelen J, Schmich P, Varga M, et al. Implementation of the European health interview survey (EHIS) into the German health update (GEDA). Arch Public Health. 2017;75:40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Allen J, Born S, Damerow S, Kuhnert R, Lemcke J, Müller A, Weihrauch T, Wetzstein M. German Health Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS) - background and methodology. J Health Monit. 2021;6(3):66–79.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).: Standard definitions – final disposition codes of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. In. Deerfield: AAPOR; 2016.

  37. Pöge K, Rommel A, Starker A, Prütz F, Tolksdorf K, Ozturk I, Strasser S, Born S, Saß AC. Survey of sex/gender diversity in the GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS study - objectives, procedure and experiences. J Health Monit. 2022;7(2):48–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. World Health Organization: Oral health surveys: basic methods, 5th ed. 2013. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/97035 Accessed 21 July 2023.

  39. Brauns H, Scherer S, Steinmann S. The CASMIN educational classification in international comparative research. In: Advances in cross-national comparison An European working book for demographic and socio-economic variables edn. Edited by Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Wolf C. New York Kluwer; 2003: 221–244.

  40. Lampert T, Kroll LE, Müters S, Stolzenberg H. Messung Des sozioökonomischen Status in Der Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell (GEDA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013;56(1):131–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lampert T, Kroll L, Müters S, Stolzenberg H. Measurement of socioeconomic status in the German Health Interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013;56(5–6):631–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cox B, van Oyen H, Cambois E, Jagger C, le Roy S, Robine JM, Romieu I. The reliability of the Minimum European Health Module. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(2):55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. von der Lippe E, Fehr A, Lange C. Limitations to usual activities due to health problems in Germany. J Health Monit. 2017;2(3):84–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Volkert D, Bauer JM, Frühwald T, Gehrke I, Lechleitner M, Lenzen-Großimlinghaus R, Wirth R, Sieber C, DGEM Steering Committee. [Guideline of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM) in cooporation with the GESKES, the AKE and the DGG. Clinical Nutrition in Geriatrics – Part of the running S3-Guideline Project Clinical Nutrition]. Aktuel Ernahrungsmed. 2013;38:e1–e48.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1–3):163–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hapke U, Cohrdes C, Nübel J. Depressive symptoms in a European comparison - results from the European health interview survey (EHIS) 2. J Health Monit. 2019;4(4):57–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. American Psychiatric Association.: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Forth edition (DSM-IV). In. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

  48. Starker A, Kuhnert R, Hoebel J, Richter A. Smoking behaviour and passive smoke exposure of adults - results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS. J Health Monit. 2022;7(3):6–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Richter A, Schienkiewitz A, Starker A, Krug S, Domanska O, Kuhnert R, Loss J, Mensink GBM. Health-promoting behaviour among adults in Germany - results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS. J Health Monit. 2021;6(3):26–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Krause L, Seeling S, Schmidt P, Prütz F. [Utilization of dental care by adults with and without impairments and disabilities—results of the GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS study]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-00023-03748-00107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoebel J, Rommel A, Schröder SL, Fuchs J, Nowossadeck E, Lampert T. Socioeconomic inequalities in Health and Perceived Unmet needs for Healthcare among the Elderly in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(10):1127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Häder M, Neumann R. Datenqualität. In: Telefonumfragen in Deutschland edn. Edited by Häder S, Häder M, Schmich P. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2019: 349–391.

  53. Patrick DL, Lee RS, Nucci M, Grembowski D, Jolles CZ, Milgrom P. Reducing oral health disparities: a focus on social and cultural determinants. BMC Oral Health. 2006;6(Suppl 1):4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Institut der Deutschen Zahnärzte (IDZ). Fünfte Deutsche Mungesundheitsstudie (DMS V). Köln: Deutscher Zahnärzte Verlag DÄV; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Listl S. Chewing abilities of elderly populations in Europe. Int Dent J. 2011;61(4):175–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Griffin SO, Jones JA, Brunson D, Griffin PM, Bailey WD. Burden of oral Disease among older adults and implications for public health priorities. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(3):411–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Winn DM. Tobacco use and oral Disease. J Dent Educ. 2001;65(4):306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. World Health Organization: The World Oral Health Report. 2003. Continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century – the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. 2003. https://www.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2009/OH_st_WHO.pdf Accessed 21 July 2023.

  59. Hollederer A, Wildner M. [Unmet Medical need in Germany: analyses of EU-SILC-Survey from 2005 to 2014]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2019;144(1):e1–e11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Skośkiewicz-Malinowska K, Malicka B, Ziętek M, Kaczmarek U. Oral health condition and occurrence of depression in the elderly. Med (Baltim). 2018;97(41):e12490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Watt RG, Williams DM, Sheiham A. The role of the dental team in promoting health equity. Br Dent J. 2014;216(1):11–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Schmidt-Westhausen AM, Bornstein MM. [Oral medicine: a specialty placed between medicine and dentistry]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2011;54(9):1061–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege (DNQP): Expertenstandard: Förderung der Mundgesundheit in der Pflege. 2023; https://www.dnqp.de/fileadmin/HSOS/Homepages/DNQP/Dateien/Expertenstandards/Mundgesundheit/Mund_AV_Auszug.pdf Accessed 21 July 2023.

  64. Huss A, Stuck AE, Rubenstein LZ, Egger M, Clough-Gorr KM. Multidimensional preventive home visit programs for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63(3):298–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bouman A, van Rossum E, Nelemans P, Kempen GI, Knipschild P. Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Kikutani T, Takahashi N, Tohara T, Furuya H, Tanaka K, Hobo K, Isoda T, Fukui T. Relationship between maintenance of occlusal support achieved by home-visit dental treatment and prognosis in home-care patients-a preliminary study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2022;22(11):976–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Furuta M, Komiya-Nonaka M, Akifusa S, Shimazaki Y, Adachi M, Kinoshita T, Kikutani T, Yamashita Y. Interrelationship of oral health status, swallowing function, nutritional status, and cognitive ability with activities of daily living in Japanese elderly people receiving home care services due to physical disabilities. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(2):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bundeszahnärztekammer (BZÄK). Kassenzahnärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KZBV): Mundgesund trotz Handicap und hohem Alter. Konzept zur vertragszahnärztlichen Versorgung von Pflegebedürftigen und Menschen mit Behinderungen. In.; 2010. https://www.bzaek.de/fileadmin/PDFs/presse/AuB_Konzept.pdf Accessed 28 October 2023.

  69. Listl S, Watt RG, Tsakos G. Early life conditions, adverse life events, and chewing ability at middle and later adulthood. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):e55–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Plutzer K, Spencer AJ. Efficacy of an oral health promotion intervention in the prevention of early childhood caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2008;36(4):335–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Phantumvanit P, Makino Y, Ogawa H, Rugg-Gunn A, Moynihan P, Petersen PE, Evans W, Feldens CA, Lo E, Khoshnevisan MH, et al. WHO Global Consultation on Public Health Intervention against Early Childhood Caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018;46(3):280–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Krause L, Frenzel Baudisch N, Bartig S, Kuntz B. [Utilization of a dental check-up by adults in Germany. Results of the GEDA study 2009, 2010, 2012]. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 2020;75(6):353–66.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Krause L, Kuntz B, Schenk L, Knopf H. Oral health behaviour of children and adolescents in Germany. Results of the cross-sectional KiGGS Wave 2 study and trends. J Health Monit. 2018;3(4):3–19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Tolvanen M, Lahti S, Poutanen R, Seppa L, Hausen H. Children’s oral health-related behaviors: individual stability and stage transitions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(5):445–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Petrakakis P, Sauerland C, Schäfer M. Öffentliche Mundgesundheitspflege. Public Health Forum. 2014;22(17):e1–e3.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gao L, Green E, Barnes LE, Brayne C, Matthews FE, Robinson L, Arthur A, Medical Research Council Cognitive F, Ageing C. Changing non-participation in epidemiological studies of older people: evidence from the cognitive function and ageing study I and II. Age Ageing. 2015;44(5):867–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Gaertner B, Lüdtke D, Koschollek C, Grube MM, Baumert J, Scheidt-Nave C, Gößwald A, Fuchs J, Wetzstein M. Effects of a sequential mixed-mode design on participation, contact and sample composition – Results of the pilot study “IMOA – Improving Health Monitoring in Old Age”. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field 2019. https://surveyinsights.org/?p=10841 Accessed 21 July 2023.

  78. Ohlmeier C, Frick J, Prütz F, Lampert T, Ziese T, Mikolajczyk R, Garbe E. [Use of routine data from statutory health insurances for federal health monitoring purposes]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014;57(4):464–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Jordan AR, Kuhr K, Frenzel Baudisch N, Kirschneck C. Prevalence of malocclusions in 8- and 9-year-old children in Germany-results of the Sixth German oral health study (DMS 6). J Orofac Orthop. 2023;84(Suppl 1):1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Krasowski A, Krois J, Paris S, Kuhlmey A, Meyer-Lueckel H, Schwendicke F. Costs for Statutorily Insured Dental Services in older Germans 2012–2017. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6669.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res. 2011;90(11):1264–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Naik A, John MT, Kohli N, Self K, Flynn P. Validation of the English-language version of 5-item oral Health Impact Profile. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(2):85–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Kojima G, Taniguchi Y, Iwasaki M, Aoyama R, Urano T. Associations between self-reported masticatory dysfunction and frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(9):e0273812.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Limpuangthip N, Tumrasvin W, Sakultae C. Masticatory index for patients wearing dental prosthesis as alternative to conventional masticatory ability measures. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1):e0263048.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Liu F, Song S, Ye X, Huang S, He J, Wang G, Hu X. Oral health-related multiple outcomes of holistic health in elderly individuals: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1021104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Speksnijder CM, Abbink JH, van der Glas HW, Janssen NG, van der Bilt A. Mixing ability test compared with a comminution test in persons with normal and compromised masticatory performance. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009;117(5):580–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Tartaglia GM, Testori T, Pallavera A, Marelli B, Sforza C. Electromyographic analysis of masticatory and neck muscles in subjects with natural dentition, teeth-supported and implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(10):1081–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. The Academy of Prosthodontics, The Academy of Prosthodontics Foundation. The Glossary of Prosthodontic terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(5S):e1–e105.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Dibello V, Zupo R, Sardone R, Lozupone M, Castellana F, Dibello A, Daniele A, De Pergola G, Bortone I, Lampignano L, et al. Oral frailty and its determinants in older age: a systematic review. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(8):e507–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Goncalves T, Schimmel M, van der Bilt A, Chen J, van der Glas HW, Kohyama K, Hennequin M, Peyron MA, Woda A, Leles CR. Jose Pereira L: Consensus on the terminologies and methodologies for masticatory assessment. J Oral Rehabil. 2021;48(6):745–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS was funded by the Robert Koch Institute and the German Federal Ministry of Health.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62–66, Berlin, 12101, Germany

    Laura Krause, Stefanie Seeling, Anja Schienkiewitz & Judith Fuchs

  2. Federal Association of Dentists of the Public Health Service, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Pantelis Petrakakis

Authors
  1. Laura Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Seeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anja Schienkiewitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judith Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pantelis Petrakakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LK and SS designed the concept of the article, and PP participated in designing the concept. LK carried out the statistical analyses. All authors analyzed the data. LK wrote the first draft of the paper, and PP participated in writing the manuscript. SS, JF, and AS edited the final manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. LK, AS and PP revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Krause.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS is subject to strict compliance with the data protection provisions set out in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). The Ethics Committee of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin assessed the ethics of the study and approved the implementation of the study (application number EA2/070/19). Participation in the study was voluntary. The participants were informed about the aims and contents of the study and about data protection. Informed consent was obtained verbally. Written informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krause, L., Seeling, S., Schienkiewitz, A. et al. Chewing ability and associated factors in older adults in Germany. Results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS. BMC Oral Health 23, 988 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03736-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03736-y

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us