Home › Research › Digital health tools
Association Between Oral Health and Cognitive Status: A Systematic Review
Wu B, Fillenbaum GG, Plassman BL, Guo L.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2016-04-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objectives To systematically review longitudinal studies examining the association between oral health and cognitive decline. Design Studies published between January 1993 and March 2013 were identified by search of English language publications in PubMed/Medline using relevant Medical Subject Heading terms and title and abstract keywords and from CINAHL using relevant subject headings. After applying eligibility criteria and adding four studies identified from article references, 56 of the 1,412 articles identified remained; 40 were cross-sectional, and 16 were longitudinal; 11 of the latter examined the effect of oral health on change in cognitive health or dementia incidence, five examined the reverse. Setting Sources of information included administrative data, subject evaluations in parent studies, medical and dental records, self-reports, and in-person evaluations. Participants Older adults. Measurements Most studies used subjects whose oral or cognitive status was known, using standard approaches to impute for missing information. The oral health information most frequently studied included number of teeth, periodontal and caries problems, and denture use. Cognition was most frequently evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination or according to a diagnosis of dementia. Results Some studies found that oral health measures such as number of teeth and periodontal disease were associated with risk of cognitive decline or incident dementia, whereas others did not find an association. Similarly, cognitive decline was not consistently associated with greater loss of teeth or number of decayed teeth. It is likely that methodological limitations play a major role in explaining the inconsistent findings. Conclusion It is unclear how or whether oral health and cognitive status are related. Additional research is needed in which there is greater agreement on how oral health and cognitive states are assessed to better examine the linkages between these two health outcomes.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wu, B., Fillenbaum, G. G., Plassman, B. L., & Guo, L. (2016). Association Between Oral Health and Cognitive Status: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14036
Vancouver
Wu B, Fillenbaum GG, Plassman BL, Guo L. Association Between Oral Health and Cognitive Status: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2016. doi:10.1111/jgs.14036. PMID: 27037761.
BibTeX
@article{wu2016-27037761,
author = {Wu, B. and Fillenbaum, G. G. and Plassman, B. L. and Guo, L.},
title = {{Association Between Oral Health and Cognitive Status: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.14036},
pmid = {27037761},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14036}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Some studies found that oral health measures such as number of teeth and periodontal disease were associated with risk of cognitive decline or incident dementia, whereas others did not find an association.
- Similarly, cognitive decline was not consistently associated with greater loss of teeth or number of decayed teeth.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27037761) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.