Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Pilot Study on the Influence of Nutritional Counselling and Implant Therapy on the Nutritional Status in Dentally Compromised Patients

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the impact of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation combined with nutritional counseling on the nutritional status of patients with severely reduced dentitions.

Design

An explorative intervention study including an intra-individual comparison of 20 patients with severely reduced dentitions in terms of nutrition- and quality of life-related parameters recorded at baseline and at six and twelve months after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation.

Participants

Twenty patients from the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, with an mean age of 63 years, who had fewer than ten pairs of antagonists.

Measurements

The baseline data collection included dental status, a chewing ability test, laboratory parameters, anthropometric data (body mass index), energy supply, a 3-day dietary record, an analysis of the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the OHIP-G14, the Mini-Mental Status (MMS) and Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Six months after implantation and prosthetic rehabilitation, individual nutritional counseling was performed by a dietician. Data were again collected and analyzed. A final follow-up was conducted 12 months after prosthetic rehabilitation.

Results

Despite the highly significant improvement in masticatory ability and OHRQoL after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, no significant changes were observed regarding MNA, anthropometric data or energy supply. Except for cholinesterase (p = 0.012), ferritin (p = 0.003), folic acid (p = 0.019) and vitamin A (p = 0.004), no laboratory parameter changed significantly during the investigation period. In addition, no general significant differences were observed for nutrient intake or food choice.

Conclusion

The present study does not confirm the assumption that the implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with severely reduced residual dentitions with or without an individual nutritional counseling influences nutritional status.

Citation: Wöstmann B, Simon T, Neuhäuser-Berthold M, Rehmann P (2016) Pilot Study on the Influence of Nutritional Counselling and Implant Therapy on the Nutritional Status in Dentally Compromised Patients. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0147193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193

Editor: Binnaz Leblebicioglu, The Ohio State University, UNITED STATES

Received: July 29, 2015; Accepted: December 22, 2015; Published: January 28, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Wöstmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Despite the extensive establishment of implant-supported prosthetic restoration, thus far, a comprehensive evaluation of its effectiveness, particularly with respect to the influence on the nutritional status and quality of life after implant-supported prosthetic treatment, has not been performed.

The correlation between current nutritional status and dental status has previously been discussed in several studies [1–8]. An impaired ability to chew has a negative effect on food selection and diet [1,2,6]. In addition, increasing tooth loss leads to a change in dietary composition [3,5,9]. In addition to gastrointestinal disorders, [10,11] an inadequate diet can result in malnutrition, with a prevalences of 0–10% for independent elderly individuals and 50% for geriatric acute or hospitalized patients [12–14].

The influence of an optimized dental status due to a positive dietary change depends on general health, socioeconomic status, individual dietary habits and condition of the masticatory system [15]. Food rejection is primarily due to masticatory disorders. Furthermore, reduced taste sensation or long-lasting adaption may require a rationalized nutrition plan [16]. Thus, improved nutritional behavior is not guaranteed after prosthetic and masticatory rehabilitation. An individually tailored nutrition intervention simplifies dietary changes for prosthetic rehabilitated elderly individuals [17].

The influence of prosthetic restorations on nutritional status has been previously discussed, particularly concerning complete and removable partial dental prostheses often also referred to as “removable partial denture” (RPD) [3,4,18]. In addition, various groups have investigated potential improvements in nutritional status and quality of life by both conventional and implant-supported dentistry [19–24]. Whether an implant-supported suprastructure supplying severely reduced dentition leads to an improved diet cannot currently be answered unequivocally in the literature. There is a lack of clinical studies containing before/after comparisons of implant-prosthetic treatments. Additionally, few studies have investigated blood parameters and nutrient intake over a period of several months [23,25,26].

This study investigated the impact of nutritional counseling on the nutritional status of patients with severely reduced dentitions after implant therapy in a pre-post design. The counseling aimed to help patients use their enhanced chewing efficiency to improve their personal diet. To the best of our knowledge, data on the effect of nutritional counseling on patient nutritional status after implant therapy are limited. This study was intended as a pilot study to identify possible marker variables.

The following null hypothesis was tested: nutritional counseling does not influence nutritional status, as assessed through nutritional blood-markers and body mass index (BMI) in patients with severely reduced dentitions after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation.

Furthermore, we analyzed a variety of typical blood and nutritional parameters to identify possible marker variables for a large-scale study.

Methods

Patients

Overall, 25 patients with fewer than ten pairs of opposing natural teeth (antagonists) and who were capable of feeding themselves were eligible and willing to participate. In all patients, a combined implant–prosthetic treatment with fixed or removable dental prostheses was planned. Patients addicted to medication, alcohol and/or drugs, suffering from malignant tumors or infectious diseases, undergoing radiation therapy, pregnant or breast-feeding or unwilling or incapable of consenting were excluded. Due to economic reasons, three patients completely abstained from the planned implant–treatment and could not be included. Thus, 22 subjects were recruited for the clinical trial (Fig 1). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in writing.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow of participants.

Flow of participants through the intervention study and response rate of subjects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.g001

After the beginning of the study, two patients were additionally excluded because they opted for a prosthetic treatment by their family dentist.

The remaining 20 participants (Table 1) were treated at the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of the Justus-Liebig University of Giessen between July 1st, 2009 and August 31st, 2012. There was no loss to follow-up at six and twelve months.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of the patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.t001

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany (Jan. 29th, 2008; Reg. No.: 181/07) and due to administrative delays registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on Dec 8th, 2009 (DRKS-ID: DRKS00000155). The authors confirm that all related trials for this intervention are registered.

Methods

At the baseline, 6-month follow-up and 12-month follow-up examinations, patient dental status was assessed, and the following tests were performed:

  • Mini Mental Status (MMS)[27] acc. to Folstein
  • Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)[28]
  • Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), which is the most frequently used assessment in dentistry to analyze Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL)[29]. In the present study, the German version of the OHIP (OHIP G14) was used[30].
  • Masticatory function test
    To evaluate masticatory efficiency, the method described by Wöstmann and Nguyen was employed. The patients were asked to chew a standardized cube of carrot (2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm) within 45 seconds into pieces as small as possible without swallowing any part of the carrot. The carrot pieces were collected in a Petri dish. Then, the degree of the comminution was evaluated visually by comparison with a reference scale (level 1 = fine; level 6 = impossible)[31].

Additionally, 17.7 ml of blood was taken from each patient to determine the serum values of hemoglobin, iron, total protein, albumin, pre-albumin, cholinesterase, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, cholesterol, ferritin, zinc, beta carotene, vitamins A, B12, C, and E and folic acid. All blood samples were taken between 8 am and 9 am. For sample collection, all patients fasted for at least 12 hours.

Anthropometric data (body mass index), energy supply, a 3-day dietary record, and an additional questionnaire determining dietary behavior were obtained. Both questionnaires were also used in the long-term GISELA study[32] and have been previously validated.

Six months after implant therapy and prosthetic rehabilitation with a minimum of 10 occluding pairs, individually tailored nutritional counseling was performed by a dietician at the Department of Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences and Environmental Management, Institute of Nutritional Science, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany. Individual counseling was based on the 3-day dietary record and dietary behavior questionaire,[32] which were completed by the patients in advance.

Statistical analysis

All blood parameters and ordinal data (MNA, masticatory efficiency test, and OHIP-G14) were subjected to a Wilcoxon matched-pairs test (p = 0.05). To identify significant group differences, the Mann-Whitney test was used (p = 0.05). As the study was intended as a pilot it was decided to assume a change in weight of about 1kg in an average subject (1.75 m / 70 kg) as a basis for power calculation. Under this assumption a sample size of 18 (change in BMI: 0.35, std 0.5) was calculated for a desired power of 0.08 and a significance level of 0.05.

All data analyses were performed with the software package IBM SPSS Statistics 20 SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

A significant improvement in OHRQoL after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation was observed (p<0.001) (Table 2). All 20 participants had a lower total OHIP-G14 score at the 6-month follow-up compared with baseline (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. OHIP-G14 score.

OHIP-G14 score at baseline and at 6 and 12 months following implant-prosthetic rehabilitation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Changes in OHIP-G14, masticatory efficiency, MNA, BMI and energy supply.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.t002

A significant improvement in chewing efficiency was observed six months after implant-prosthetic therapy (p<0.001). No subject exhibited decreased chewing efficiency. No further improvements from the 6- and 12-month follow-up were observed (p>0.05) (Table 2).

All patients had MMS scores above 27. No changes were observed during the observation period. The mean MNA increased only slightly from 14.6 ± 3.0 (baseline) to 15.1 ± 3.6 at the 6-month follow-up and 14.7 ± 3.2 at the 12-month follow-up (p>0.05) (Table 2). In addition, no significant changes were observed in terms of anthropometric data (BMI) or energy supply (p>0.05).

With the exceptions of cholinesterase (p = 0.012), ferritin (p = 0.003), folic acid (p = 0.019) and vitamin A (p = 0.004), no laboratory parameter changed significantly during the investigation period (Table 3). No change in nutrient intake or food choice (p>0.05) was observed (Tables 4 and 5). Beta-carotene, iron, zinc and carbohydrates decreased, whereas cholesterol and retinol intake increased.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Plasma biomarkers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.t003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Nutrient intake.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.t004

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Food selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147193.t005

Discussion

This study was intended as a pilot study to identify possible blood and nutritional parameters suitable for a larger scale study on the effect of implant treatment on patient nutritional status. Thus, many parameters typically considered in a nutritional context were investigated. However, none of the 26 blood parameters exhibited potential for use as a marker variable. Due to the enormous costs of laboratory analysis of blood samples, only a limited number of patients were included, which is a shortcoming of this study. However, after baseline, no patients were lost to follow-up. The overall high cost of the implant treatment must be regarded as a potential source of bias as primarily patients with higher socio-economic status opt for implant treatment and thus where eligible for this study. However, these patients tend to be better nourished[15].

The most significant differences with regard to OHIP-G14 were observed between baseline and the second examination (p<0.001), indicating improvement in OHRQoL immediately following implant-prosthetic rehabilitation and an increase in antagonistic pairs. This improvement was observed in every patient. The significantly increased chewing efficiency was correlated with these parameters. Our results support those of Inukai et al. [33] and Brennan et al. [1].

A range of publications have addressed whether implant-prosthetic rehabilitation influences OHRQoL [21,22,34–37]. Compared with conventional dental prostheses, OHRQoL increased significantly after the implant-supported prosthetic restoration. Group differences were strongly observed for comfort and stability [22,37].

In concordance with the previous literature, these results demonstrate that implant-prosthetic rehabilitation commonly leads to enhanced masticatory efficiency [23,24,26,38–40]. In addition to a masticatory efficiency test, other technical measures can assess chewing efficiency. Awad et al. [26] used questionnaires to determine chewing efficiency among middle-aged edentulous patients. Compared with visually evaluated techniques (e.g., masticatory efficiency tests with carrots or artificial test food), questionnaires and food records do present a disadvantage regarding objectivity.

MNA is a popular instrument for determining potential malnutrition in the current literature [39,41–44]. Concerning the current results, no changes were observed throughout the study period. This result can primarily be explained by the fact that most participants did not exhibit indications of malnutrition or were classified as being at risk of malnutrition. Thus, no substantive improvements could have been expected.

In the present study, no significant changes were observed regarding anthropometric data (BMI) or energy supply (p>0.05). A trend towards reduced mean calorie intake was observed. Muller et al. [16] and Morais et al. [23] demonstrated a missing correlation between the insertion of dental implants and increasing anthropometric data (BMI) compared with conventional dental prosthesis patients.

During the investigation period, no laboratory parameter significantly changed, except for cholinesterase, ferritin, folic acid and vitamin A. Aside from these parameters, albumin and prealbumin are the most-studied blood parameters for assessing dietary status [23,26]. The reason for these constant values relates to a constant good nutritional status among the clientele and the long half-life of albumin, which is approximately 20 days [45]. One advantage of the present study design is the repeated analysis of all blood parameters throughout the observation period.

Considering the changes for nutrient intake and food choice, it should be noted that food selection is heavily impacted by socio-economic status and individual habits and tastes [46,47]. A non-significant decrease in fiber consumption was observed, which corresponds to the findings of Moynihan et al. [25]. However, fruit and vegetable intake increased slightly compared with the baseline level. These dietary habit changes are due to masticatory improvements (cf. Morais et al. [23]). Occasionally, a few signs of improved diet could be identified after dietary intervention. In general, food awareness increased in the clientele after the tailored diet plan; unfortunately, these changes were not significant.

Conclusions

Collectively, the present study does not confirm the assumption that implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with severely reduced residual dentitions with or without an individual nutritional counseling influences nutritional status. Of the blood parameters investigated, no parameter had potential as a specific marker. However, our results provide strong indications of a direct impact on OHRQoL and chewing ability among implant-rehabilitated patients, which confirms the functional advantages of implant prosthodontics.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the statistical advice from Dipl. Math. Jörg Reitze.

Financial Disclosure: This study was conducted by the authors in their role as researchers at Justus-Liebig University Gießen, Germany. No external financial support was used. The authors do not have any financial interest in this work.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: BW TS MNB PR. Performed the experiments: TS. Analyzed the data: BW TS MNB PR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: BW TS MNB PR. Wrote the paper: BW TS MNB PR.

References

  1. 1. Brennan DS, Spencer AJ, Roberts-Thomson KF. Tooth loss, chewing ability and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2008;17: 227–235. pmid:18075784
  2. 2. Millwood J, Heath MR. Food choice by older people: the use of semi-structured interviews with open and closed questions. Gerodontology. 2000;17: 25–32. pmid:11203509
  3. 3. Mojon P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Rapin CH. Relationship between oral health and nutrition in very old people. Age Ageing. 1999;28: 463–468. pmid:10529041
  4. 4. Moynihan PJ, Butler TJ, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ. Nutrient intake in partially dentate patients: the effect of prosthetic rehabilitation. J Dent. 2000;28: 557–563. pmid:11082523
  5. 5. Walls AW, Steele JG. The relationship between oral health and nutrition in older people. Mech Ageing Dev. 2004;125: 853–857. pmid:15563930
  6. 6. Sheiham A, Steele J. Does the condition of the mouth and teeth affect the ability to eat certain foods, nutrient and dietary intake and nutritional status amongst older people? Public Health Nutr. 2001;4: 797–803. pmid:11415487
  7. 7. Sheiham A, Steele JG, Marcenes W, Lowe C, Finch S, Bates CJ, et al. The relationship among dental status, nutrient intake, and nutritional status in older people. J Dent Res. 2001;80: 408–413. pmid:11332523
  8. 8. Singh KA, Brennan DS. Chewing disability in older adults attributable to tooth loss and other oral conditions. Gerodontology. 2012;29: 106–110. pmid:22356168
  9. 9. Marcenes W, Steele JG, Sheiham A, Walls AW. The relationship between dental status, food selection, nutrient intake, nutritional status, and body mass index in older people. Cad Saude Publica. 2003;19: 809–816. pmid:12806483
  10. 10. Brodeur JM, Laurin D, Vallee R, Lachapelle D. Nutrient intake and gastrointestinal disorders related to masticatory performance in the edentulous elderly. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70: 468–473. pmid:8254553
  11. 11. Kossioni AE, Dontas AS. The stomatognathic system in the elderly. Useful information for the medical practitioner. Clin Interv Aging. 2007;2: 591–597. pmid:18225459
  12. 12. Perez Llamas F, Morego A, Tobaruela M, Garcia MD, Santo E, Zamora S. [Prevalence of malnutrition and influence of oral nutritional supplementation on nutritional status in institutionalized elderly]. Nutr Hosp. 2011;26: 1134–1140. pmid:22072365
  13. 13. Saletti A, Johansson L, Yifter-Lindgren E, Wissing U, Osterberg K, Cederholm T. Nutritional status and a 3-year follow-up in elderly receiving support at home. Gerontology. 2005;51: 192–198. pmid:15832047
  14. 14. Volkert D, Pauly L, Stehle P, Sieber CC. Prevalence of malnutrition in orally and tube-fed elderly nursing home residents in Germany and its relation to health complaints and dietary intake. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2011;2011: 247315. pmid:21687611
  15. 15. Wayler AH, Muench ME, Kapur KK, Chauncey HH. Masticatory performance and food acceptability in persons with removable partial dentures, full dentures and intact natural dentition. J Gerontol. 1984;39: 284–289. pmid:6715804
  16. 16. Muller K, Morais J, Feine J. Nutritional and anthropometric analysis of edentulous patients wearing implant overdentures or conventional dentures. Braz Dent J. 2008;19: 145–150. pmid:18568230
  17. 17. Bradbury J, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ, Walls AW, Allen PF, MoynihanPJ. Nutrition counseling increases fruit and vegetable intake in the edentulous. J Dent Res. 2006;85: 463–468. pmid:16632762
  18. 18. Inoue M, John MT, Tsukasaki H, Furuyama C, Baba K. Denture quality has a minimal effect on health-related quality of life in patients with removable dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38: 818–826. pmid:21517932
  19. 19. Heydecke G, Boudrias P, Awad MA, De Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Feine JS. Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: Patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14: 125–130. pmid:12562375
  20. 20. Allen PF, McMillan AS, Walshaw D. A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85: 141–147. pmid:11208203
  21. 21. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16: 117–122. pmid:12737240
  22. 22. Ellis JS, Elfeky AF, Moynihan PJ, Seal C, Hyland RM, Thomason M. The impact of dietary advice on edentulous adults' denture satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 6 months after intervention. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21: 386–391. pmid:20105193
  23. 23. Morais JA, Heydecke G, Pawliuk J, Lund JP, Feine JS. The effects of mandibular two-implant overdentures on nutrition in elderly edentulous individuals. J Dent Res. 2003;82: 53–58. pmid:12508046
  24. 24. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grutter L, Aracil-Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: a cross-sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23: 144–150. pmid:21631592
  25. 25. Moynihan PJ, Elfeky A, Ellis JS, Seal CJ, Hyland RM, Thomason JM. Do implant-supported dentures facilitate efficacy of eating more healthily? J Dent. 2012;40: 843–850. pmid:22796497
  26. 26. Awad MA, Morais JA, Wollin S, Khalil A, Gray-Donald K, Feine JS. Implant overdentures and nutrition: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res. 2012;91: 39–46. pmid:21951464
  27. 27. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 197512: 189–198.
  28. 28. Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: The Mini Nutritional Assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutr Rev. 1996;54: S59–65.
  29. 29. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health. 1994;11: 3–11. pmid:8193981
  30. 30. John MT, Miglioretti DL, LeResche L, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Micheelis W. German short forms of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;34: 277–288. pmid:16856948
  31. 31. Nguyen C, Wöstmann B, Ferger P, Kolb G. Auswirkung der Qualität des Zahnersatzes und der Kaueffizienz auf den Ernährungszustand geriatrischer Patienten. Euro J Ger. 1999;1: 84.
  32. 32. Lührmann PM, Herbert BM, Gaster C, Neuhauser-Berthold M. Validation of a self-administered 3-day estimated dietary record for use in the elderly. Eur J Nutr. 1999;38: 235–240. pmid:10654160
  33. 33. Inukai M, John MT, Igarashi Y, Baba K. Association between perceived chewing ability and oral health-related quality of life in partially dentate patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8: 118. pmid:20955614
  34. 34. Thomason JM. The use of mandibular implant-retained overdentures improve patient satisfaction and quality of life. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012;12: 182–184.
  35. 35. Allen PF, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ, Nohl F, Smith DG, Ellis JA. A randomized controlled trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Dent Res. 2006;85: 547–551. pmid:16723653
  36. 36. Brennan M, Houston F, O'Sullivan M, O'Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25: 791–800. pmid:20657876
  37. 37. Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31: 161–168. pmid:12752541
  38. 38. de Oliveira TR, Frigerio ML. Association between nutrition and the prosthetic condition in edentulous elderly. Gerodontology. 2004;21: 205–208. pmid:15603279
  39. 39. Borges Tde F, Mendes FA, de Oliveira TR, do Prado CJ, das Neves FD. Overdenture with immediate load: mastication and nutrition. Br J Nutr. 2011;105: 990–994. pmid:21129234
  40. 40. Allen F, McMillan A. Food selection and perceptions of chewing ability following provision of implant and conventional prostheses in complete denture wearers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13: 320–326. pmid:12010164
  41. 41. Wostmann B, Michel K, Brinkert B, Melchheier-Weskott A, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M. Influence of denture improvement on the nutritional status and quality of life of geriatric patients. J Dent. 2008;36: 816–821. pmid:18603344
  42. 42. Soini H, Routasalo P, Lauri S, Ainamo A. Oral and nutritional status in frail elderly. Spec Care Dentist. 2003;23: 209–215. pmid:15085957
  43. 43. Cousson PY, Bessadet M, Nicolas E, Veyrune JL, Lesourd B, Lassauzay C. Nutritional status, dietary intake and oral quality of life in elderly complete denture wearers. Gerodontology. 2012;29: e685–692. pmid:22004061
  44. 44. McKenna G, Allen PF, Flynn A, O'Mahony D, DaMata C, Cronin M, et al. Impact of tooth replacement strategies on the nutritional status of partially-dentate elders. Gerodontology. 2012;29: e883–890. pmid:22117892
  45. 45. Volkert D. Klinische Geriatrie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2000.
    • 46. Müller F, Nitschke I. Mundgesundheit, Zahnstatus und Ernährung im Alter. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2005;38: 334–341. pmid:16244818
    • 47. Nakata M. Masticatory function and its effects on general health. Int Dent J. 1998;48: 540–548. pmid:9881286