Skip to main content
Download PDF

Physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and executive function among older adults especially for females: a cross-sectional study

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 468 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Oral frailty is reported to increase the risk of new onset of mild cognitive impairment. Whereas, the association of oral frailty with cognition among older adults in both physical frail and non-physical frail status has not been sufficiently explored, and whether there are sex differences in the association is unclear. This study investigated the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with global cognitive function and executive function among older adults, as well as the sex differences in such association.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 307 participants aged ≥ 60 years old from communities between June 2023 and August 2023, in Nanjing, China. Global cognitive function and executive function were assessed by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Trail Making Tests A (TMT-A), respectively. Oral frailty was identified by the combination of natural tooth, Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8), and oral diadochokinesis. Physical frailty was measured by using Fried phenotype model which contained 5 criteria: unintentional weight loss, weakness, exhaustion, slowness, and low physical activity. Multiple linear regression analyses for overall participants and stratified by sex and presence or absence of physical frailty were performed, respectively, to examine the association between oral frailty and cognitive functions.

Results

The median age of participants was 70 years old. The study included 158 (51.5%) females, 53 (17.3%) individuals with physical frailty, and 65 (21.2%) participants with oral frailty. After adjustment, the association between oral frailty and global cognitive function was observed in the physical frailty group (B = -2.67, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -5.27 to -0.07, p = 0.045) and the females with physical frailty (B = -4, 95% CI: -7.41 to -0.58, p = 0.024). Oral frailty was associated with executive function in overall participants (B = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.22, p = 0.037), physical frailty group (B = 23.68, 95% CI: 1.37 to 45.99, p = 0.038). In the adjusted models, oral frailty was significantly associated with executive function in all females (B = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.36, p = 0.009), in females without physical frailty (B = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.36, p = 0.027), and in females with physical frailty (B = 48.69, 95% CI: 7.17 to 90.21, p = 0.024).

Conclusions

Physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and executive function among older adults, particularly among females. It is ponderable to consider sex differences and facilitate the management of physical frailty when it comes to promoting cognitive health based on the perspective of oral health among older adults.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

There are more than 55 million people suffering from dementia worldwide [1], and the long-term care and financial burden caused by dementia are substantial [2]. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents a vital prodromal phase of dementia (especially Alzheimer’s disease), and more than half of MCI patients progress to dementia within 5 years [3]. Identifying and managing the modifiable risk factors of early cognitive impairment are conducive to preventing or decelerating the progression of dementia and reducing the care burden. Recently, the association between oral health and cognition has been arousing more interests in the geriatric research area.

Oral health is regarded as an essential component of healthy aging [4]. Previous studies suggested that declined oral conditions, such as tooth loss or masticatory dysfunction which decreased the sensorimotor stimulation produced by the chewing process to the brain [5], contributed to the degeneration of cognitive function. Recently, given the complexity and multidimensional nature of oral health, the concept of oral frailty is proposed which is determined by a combination of multiple oral health-related indicators [6, 7], emphasizing the age-related gradual decline of various oral conditions accompanied by deteriorative physical and mental functions [8]. A previous study had reported the association between oral frailty and the decline of global cognitive function, which indicated that oral frailty increased the risk of new onset of MCI [9].

Executive function (EF) is an important subdomain of cognitive function. Subtle EF deficits occur in the very early stage of cognitive impairment [10], which could predict the progress of cognitive impairment [11]. EF deficits jeopardize individuals’ instrumental activities of daily living [12] and increase the occurrence of disability in older adults [13]. Identifying the signs of EF deficits profoundly benefits the cognitive health of older adults. Naorungroj et al.’s [14] cross-sectional study indicated that the tooth loss and gingival bleeding were considered as markers of poorer EF among middle-aged and elderly people. Whereas Yang et al. reported that the use of dentures mitigated the adverse effects of tooth loss on cognitive impairment [15]. It implied that the single oral health indicator might be insufficient to reflect the association between oral status and EF. Consequently, oral frailty which compressively reflects oral health status might perform better as the marker of poor EF. Nevertheless, the association of oral frailty with EF among older adults has not been clarified.

Physical frailty is a complicated, multidimensional syndrome, generally referring to the decline of physiological reserve and lower tolerance for stressful events, which is regarded as the risk factor for diverse adverse health-related outcomes [16]. Previous evidence indicated oral frailty is regarded as a risk factor for physical frailty [6], and physical frailty could aggravate cognitive decline due to multiple biological, psychological, and social factors [17]. It implied that physical frailty could affect the association between oral frailty and poor cognitive function. Additionally, we also noticed that Nagatani et al. [9] found that the association between oral frailty and new-onset MCI among healthy participants was insignificant, while the risk of new-onset MCI increased when individuals exhibited physical frailty coexisted with oral frailty. It meant that compared to oral frailty alone, the coexistence of oral frailty and physical frailty might deteriorate the impairment of global cognitive function. However, the association of oral frailty with EF among older adults in the case of the presence or absence of physical frailty has not been reported yet.

Notably, it is crucial to consider the sex differences in the association between oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function. Females were vulnerable to poor oral status [18, 19] and physical frailty in later life [20] attributed to several factors, e.g., hormonal readiness. Additionally, studies reported that compared to males, declined oral status was robustly associated with physical frailty in females [21], while physical frailty was significantly correlated with subjective cognitive decline in females [22]. We concluded that no matter oral frailty or physical frailty, both would lead to greater adverse effects on females’ health. Therefore, we sought to explore whether there were sex differences in the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function among older adults. Particularly, we speculated such potential associations were prominent in female older adults. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with global cognitive function and EF among older adults, as well as the sex differences in such association. We established the conceptual framework of the study and showed the details in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The conceptual framework of the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function

Notes: solid line arrows indicate the directionality of the association between oral frailty and poor cognitive functions. Dotted lines arrows indicate the pathway that oral frailty links to physical frailty, and physical frailty links to poor cognitive functions

Full size image

Methods

Study design and participants

This was a cross-sectional study and conducted by adhering to the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement (STROBE) [23]. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Nanjing Medical University (NMU2023-562). All participants signed the informed consent before the survey. Participants aged ≥ 60 years old were recruited from 6 communities in Jiangning District, Nanjing, China, from June 2023 to August 2023 through a two-stage sampling method. People with cerebral cardiovascular disease, major brain injury, severe psychiatric or neurodegenerative disorders, severe hearing or visual problems, and serious physical dysfunction which might affect the completion of the assessment tasks, were excluded from the study. Eligible participants were invited into a quiet room in community healthcare centers to undergo a set of assessments. Face-to-face structured questionnaire interviews and physical function evaluations were conducted by professionally trained investigators.

Measures

Global cognitive function

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to measure global cognitive function, which is a 30-point test administered in 10 to 15 min, and higher scores indicate better cognition. MoCA contains 12 items for 8 cognitive domains. Details of the specific MoCA items were introduced by Nasreddine et al. [24]. In the present study, the total score of the measure was adjusted based on the education years, namely one point was added with 12 years or less of education [25].

Executive function

EF of participants was assessed through Trail Making Tests A (TMT-A). Individuals were instructed to draw a line as rapidly as possible joining consecutive numbers (1, 2, 3…24, 25) [26], without lifting the pen from the paper. Investigators recorded the time (seconds) spent by the participants to complete the TMT-A tests, and a longer time indicated a poor EF [27]. When an error was made, the investigator pointed it out immediately and requested the participant to correct it. The tests not completed within six minutes were stopped, while the test time and the number of errors were recorded [28].

Oral frailty

In the present study, oral frailty was assessed by the following combination of indicators: fewer than 20 natural teeth [29], the score of Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8) ≥ 4, and the poor status of oral diadochokinesis (ODK). Participants who met these conditions were classified into the oral frailty group, while other cases were classified into the non-oral frailty group.

The OFI-8 scale is a screening questionnaire consisting of 8 items covering the aspects of tooth loss and denture using, the deterioration of general chewing ability and swallowing ability, oral health-related behaviors, and decreased social participation. The specific items are Q1. “Do you have any difficulties eating tough foods compared to 6 months ago? (Yes: 2 points)”, Q2. “Have you choked on your tea or soup recently? (Yes: 2 points)”, Q3. “Do you use dentures? (Yes: 2 points)”, Q4. “Do you often have a dry mouth? (Yes: 1 point)”, Q5. “Do you go out less frequently than you did last year? (Yes: 1 point)”, Q6. Can you eat hard foods like squid jerky or pickled radish? (No: 1 point)”, Q7. “How many times do you brush your teeth in a day? (3 or more times/day) (No: 1 point)”, and Q8. “Do you visit a dental clinic at least annually? (No: 1 point)”. The total OFI-8 score ranges from 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating poorer oral health. An OFI-8 score of ≥ 4 points means that the individuals are at high risk of new-onset oral frailty. The tool had been tested with sound sensitivity and specificity, and Cronbach’s α coefficient is 0.692 [30].

ODK is broadly used to evaluate tongue-lip motor function [31]. Participants were asked to articulate each syllable (“pa”, “ta”, “ka”) repetitively as fast as possible 20 times. Investigators used the digital counter of phone to count the time (seconds) of 20 times articulations of each syllable in a consistent standard. Before the official test, participants practiced 2 or 3 times to familiarize themselves with the test rules. We divided 20 by the total time taken to pronounce each syllable using statistical software, by which the articulation times of each syllable per second were calculated. The male whose articulation times of “pa” and “ta” were < 5.2 times/s, with “ka” < 4.4 times/s meanwhile, as well as the female whose articulation times of “pa” was < 5.6 times/s, with “ta”< 5.4 times/s and “ka” < 5.0 times/s meanwhile, were considered to have a poor status of ODK [6]. Besides, other cases were classified as non-poor status of ODK.

The measurement of oral frailty was conducted by professionally trained investigators. The inter-rater reliability of assessment for oral frailty was assessed in a pilot test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the OFI-8 scale, “pa” of ODK, “ta” of ODK, and “ka” of ODK were 0.978, 0.959, 0.976, and 0.935, respectively, indicating sound inter-rater reliability.

Physical frailty

Physical frailty was measured based on the Fried phenotype model, containing 5 criteria [32,33,34]. I. Unintentional weight loss: Response of “yes” to “Compared to one year ago, have you lost 3 kg or more in weight? ”. II. Weakness: Response of “yes” to “Do you need more efforts to screw on bottle caps or carry heavy objects compared to your conditions last year?” III. Exhaustion: Response of “yes” to “During the past year, have you felt that you have trouble doing everything and you get tired easily?”. IV. Low physical activity. If male older adults walk less than 2.5 h per week or female older adults walk less than 2 h per week, this was defined as “Low physical activity”. The walking time was reported by participants. V. Slowness: If a participant’s normal gait speed was < 0.75 m/s, this was defined as “slow gait speed”. Gait speed was calculated as the walk of a 6-meter distance divided by walking time (seconds). Participants meeting three or more criteria were considered as physical frailty group, and other cases were categorized into the non-physical frailty group.

Covariates

Sociodemographic factors were age (60 ~ 69 years, 70 ~ 79 years, and ≥ 80 years), sex (female, male), education level (analphabetic, primary, secondary, and tertiary), and the average monthly income (Chinese yuan /month) (≤ 2,000, 2,000–4,000, and ≥ 4,000).

Sample size

The sample size was estimated through PASS (Power Analysis and Sample Size) 2017 Statistical software (NCSS LLC., Kaysville, U.T., USA). The squared multiple correlation coefficient of the multiple linear regression analyses, namely \({R}^{2}\)or the coefficient of determination, was used as the measure of the effect size parameter, upon which the power analysis and sample size were based. Given that the influence of the independent variable on the corresponding dependent variable was unclear, we used the unconditional (Random X’ s) model. We set a significant level of 0.05, 0.80 power of the analysis, and an estimated effect size of 0.20 (\({\rho 1}^{2}\)), rejecting the null hypothesis that the population effect size is ≤ 0.1 (\({\rho 0}^{2}\)) [35]. Considering a 10% dropout rate [36] during the survey, a total of 299 participants were needed at least.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS Statistics software version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Cases with missing data were excluded in the final data analysis and outliers of variables were removed according to the box plots. Sociodemographic factors were described as frequencies (N) and percentages (%). In this study, the total scores of MoCA and the time (seconds) of TMT-A were regarded as continuous variables. Oral frailty, physical frailty, and sex were used as categorical variables. Age, education level, and average monthly income were regarded as categorical variables. Normality was assessed through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or Shapiro-Wilk test. Cognitive functions for different groups stratified by different variables in the overall participants and non-physical frailty group were expressed as median (interquartile range) due to skewed distribution, which were presented as the mean and standard deviation (SD) in the physical frailty group since meeting normality. Comparisons of groups stratified by different variables in the overall participants and non-physical frailty group were conducted through the Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test, while an independent sample t-test or one-way analysis of variance was performed in the physical frailty group according to the data distribution. Linear regression analyses among overall participants and stratified by sex and presence or absence of physical frailty were performed, respectively, to explore the association between oral frailty and cognitive functions. The dependent variable of the analysis was the score of MoCA and the taken time for the TMT-A test, while the independent variable was oral frailty. The time of the TMT-A test was included in the regression analysis after log-transformation (Logarithm with base e) in the overall participants and non-physical frailty group due to the skewed distribution of data, while the raw data was included in the analysis of the physical frailty group. Our study presented the results of unadjusted analyses and adjusted analyses. Multiple linear regression models were adjusted for the above covariates. As this study did not highlight the extent to which the different independent variables were associated with the dependent variable and the independent variables were coded into categorical variables, we did not standardize the raw data but presented the unstandardized regression coefficients B and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for B in the results. The multicollinearity between key variables was examined by the values of Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor.

Results

Participants characteristics

A total of 345 participants were recruited initially, and 19 cases were deleted due to the missing data on the number of teeth, the time of the TMT-A test and ODK. Another 19 cases were deleted for the outliers of the spent time and the number of errors in the TMT-A test. Finally, the data from 307 participants was included in the statistical analysis. The age range of participants was from 60 to 90 years old, with a median age of 70 years old. There were 158 (51.5%) female, 53 (17.3%) individuals with physical frailty, 65 (21.2%) participants with oral frailty participating in the study. Table 1 presents characteristics of participants and Table 2 shows the results of the comparisons of cognitive functions between groups stratified by sociodemographic factors, the presence or absence of oral frailty and physical frailty. Overall, there were statistically significant differences in cognitive functions between individuals of different sociodemographic backgrounds.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of participants (N = 307)
Full size table
Table 2 Comparisons of cognitive functions between groups stratified by sociodemographic characteristics among older adults
Full size table

The association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function

The results showed that the participants with only oral frailty had poor EF, and those diagnosed with both oral frailty and physical frailty had poor EF and global cognitive function. For the EF, we observed a significant association between oral frailty and EF in the crude model of the overall participants (B = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.29, p = 0.006), which was still significant (B = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.22, p = 0.037) after adjustment for the above covariates. There was also a relationship of that for the crude model of non-physical frailty group (B = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.3, p = 0.016), however, this was not significant after adjustment (B = 0.1, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.113). Inversely, the association was significant in the adjusted model (B = 23.68, 95% CI: 1.37 to 45.99, p = 0.038) instead of the crude model for the physical frailty group (B = 21.57, 95% CI: -1.34 to 44.48, p = 0.064). For global cognitive function, although oral frailty was not related to global cognitive function either in the overall participants or non-physical frailty group, there was a significant association in the adjusted model of the physical frailty group (B = -2.67, 95% CI: -5.27 to -0.07, p = 0.045).

The sex difference in the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function

The results showed that the positive association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function was significant in females, however, it was not significant among males. There was no significant difference in EF or global cognitive function between males with or without oral frailty. In contrast, females with oral frailty had poor EF compared to those without oral frailty. Besides, Females with both oral frailty and physical frailty also had poor global cognitive function compared to females with only oral frailty. For EF, in the adjusted models, oral frailty was significantly associated with EF in all females (B = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.36, p = 0.009), in females without physical frailty (B = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.36, p = 0.027), and in females with physical frailty (B = 48.69, 95% CI: 7.17 to 90.21, p = 0.024). For global cognitive function, despite the association between oral frailty and global cognitive function was not significant for the females of the overall participants and non-physical frailty group, we still observed a significant relationship of that in the adjusted model among the physical frailty group (B = -4, 95% CI:-7.41 to -0.58, p = 0.024). Tables 3 and 4 show the results of unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with global cognitive function or EF, respectively. For the results of model fitting, all adjusted models of the overall participants and females of the non-physical frailty group presented the R2 > 0.2 with p-value < 0.05. The crude model of the association between oral frailty and EF in females with physical frailty was statistically significant (R2 = 0.17, F = 4.40, p = 0.048), but the p-value of the adjusted model was > 0.05 (R2 = 0.37, F = 2.84, p = 0.053). We need to mention that although it was difficult to convert MoCA scores to a normal distribution, the linear regression model had acceptable residual independence, normality, and homogeneity of variance. Additionally, the results of multicollinearity were acceptable.

Table 3 The association of oral frailty and physical frailty with global cognitive function among older adults
Full size table
Table 4 The association of oral frailty and physical frailty with executive function among older adults
Full size table

Discussion

This study investigated the associations of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive functions and the sex difference of these associations using the data from community-dwelling older adults. The main findings indicated that generally, oral frailty was positively correlated with poor cognitive function, and the association was intensified by the presence of physical frailty. In addition, the associations of oral frailty and physical frailty with poor cognitive functions were prominent among females compared to that in males.

The present study demonstrated the association between oral frailty and cognitive functions among older adults. Consistent with previous study which reported that poor oral conditions constituted hazard factors of cognitive impairment [37], overall, the association of declined oral status defined by multiple indicators with poor cognitive functions was observed in the present study. Specifically, our findings indicated that oral frailty was positively associated with poor EF among overall older adults. However, oral frailty was not associated with global cognitive function among all participants in this study. It may be related to the phenomenon that mild EF deficits often occur in preclinical stage of cognitive impairment [11]. Previously, study reported EF could predict the validity of subjective memory complaints during periods while objectively measured clinical symptoms of cognitive impairment were not obvious [38], while Farias et al. reported deficits in EF were one of the strongest predictors of diagnostic conversion to MCI among older adults with normal cognition [39]. Empirical studies hint that EF is seemly vulnerable to detrimental conditions compared to global cognitive function. Our study indicated that oral frailty was more likely to impact EF compared to global cognitive function. It appeared to be reasonable to consider oral frailty as one of the early potential markers for the decline of EF among older adults.

Our study suggested that the presence of physical frailty exhibited an additive effect on the association between oral frailty and poor cognitive function. Particularly, oral frailty existing alone was only associated with EF, whereas oral frailty was positively related to both poor EF and global cognitive function when oral frailty coexisted with physical frailty. Previous studies have confirmed the detrimental effect of physical frailty on cognition. Chu et al. emphasized [40] that physical frailty was associated with lower levels and steeper declines in several cognitive domains, particularly EF. A previous study [41] found that non-demented older adults with physical frailty were associated with a decline in MoCA scores compared with those without physical frailty in the next two years. Furthermore, physical frailty and cognitive decline were considered to share some common mechanisms, including inflammation, oxidative stress, etc [42], which cause more unfavorable conditions to each other. Thus, physical frailty could further exacerbate the vulnerability of cognition. Combined with our study, in the overall participants, people with physical frailty showed a poorer global cognitive function compared to those without physical frailty, while there was no significant difference in EF in physical frailty and non-physical frailty group, and the association of oral frailty with global cognitive function or EF indeed differed in the case of the presence or absence of physical frailty. Therefore, the presence of physical frailty may imply that both global cognitive function and the specific cognitive domain of the individual had been impaired to a certain extent. Likewise, it meant that oral frailty was more likely to affect both EF and global cognitive function of individual with physical frailty. Since the process of physical frailty is modifiable or reversible [43], it indicates that regarding preventing cognitive decline through oral health intervention, clinicians should attach importance to the early screening and management of physical frailty.

The sex differences in the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with cognitive function were demonstrated in this study. Of note, no matter the presence or absence of physical frailty, oral frailty was not related to cognitive functions in males, while oral frailty was always associated with EF in females. Additionally, in the overall participants and non-physical frailty group of our study, global cognitive function and EF of females were poorer than males. A range of factors concerning society, psychology, and physiology, provided plausible explanations for the sex differences in cognition. Prior evidences suggested that compared to males, females were more likely to be less socially engaged [44], exhibit poorer mental health [45], and even experience higher exposure to pain, such as migraine [46, 47]. Besides, greater fluctuation of sex hormones for female older adults in later life than males of the same age might provide another potential explanation for the poor EF of females than males [48, 49]. Previous evidence depicted the sex differences in cognitive vulnerability. Namely, our findings implied that the cognition of females might be more susceptible to the negative effect of oral frailty. Consequently, the association of oral frailty with EF was robust in females. Likewise, physical frailty also presented an additive effect, besides EF, the association of oral frailty with global cognitive function also emerged among female older adults coexisted with oral frailty and physical frailty, which was not found in males. It appeared that the coexistence of oral frailty and physical frailty might be an important predictor of cognitive decline in females. Developing sex-specific policies or measures is essential for preventing or managing oral and cognitive health.

There were some limitations of this study. The methods for the determination of oral frailty varied greatly without a consensus, and we incorporated some generally accepted criteria to measure oral frailty in our study. However, it is important to reach a consensus to enable comparison with other research in further studies. Additionally, the participants were only recruited from Nanjing City, thus the findings of the present study might not be generalizable to the broader population of older adults. Finally, the specific causality could not be determined through our cross-sectional design, which needs to be further verified by more longitudinal and larger-scale studies.

Conclusions

The present study indicates that physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and EF among older adults, particularly among females. It is ponderable to consider sex differences and facilitate the management of physical frailty when it comes to promoting cognitive health based on the perspective of oral health among older adults. Longitudinal studies with large-scale are needed to further verify the findings.

Data availability

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Long S, Andrew J, Bashir S, Benoist C, Chauvin L, Edmunds M et al. World Alzheimer Report 2023: Reducing dementia risk: never too early, never too late. Alzheimer’s Disease International. 2023. https://www.alzint.org/u/World-Alzheimer-Report-2023.pdf. Accessed 05 April 2024.

  2. Choi H, Langa KM, Norton EC, Cho TC, Connell CM. Changes in Care Use and Financial Status Associated with Dementia in older adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(12):1315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gauthier S, Reisberg B, Zaudig M, Petersen RC, Ritchie K, Broich K, et al. Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet (London England). 2006;367(9518):1262–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tonetti MS, Bottenberg P, Conrads G, Eickholz P, Heasman P, Huysmans MC, et al. Dental caries and periodontal diseases in the ageing population: call to action to protect and enhance oral health and well-being as an essential component of healthy ageing - Consensus report of group 4 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44(Suppl 18):S135–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sta Maria MT, Hasegawa Y, Khaing AMM, Salazar S, Ono T. The relationships between mastication and cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Japanese Dent Sci Rev. 2023;59:375–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tanaka T, Takahashi K, Hirano H, Kikutani T, Watanabe Y, Ohara Y, et al. Oral Frailty as a risk factor for physical Frailty and Mortality in Community-Dwelling Elderly. Journals Gerontol Ser Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73(12):1661–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiltunen K, Saarela RKT, Kautiainen H, Roitto HM, Pitkälä KH, Mäntylä P. Relationship between Fried’s frailty phenotype and oral frailty in long-term care residents. Age Ageing. 2021;50(6):2133–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Watanabe Y, Okada K, Kondo M, Matsushita T, Nakazawa S, Yamazaki Y. Oral health for achieving longevity. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020;20(6):526–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nagatani M, Tanaka T, Son BK, Kawamura J, Tagomori J, Hirano H, et al. Oral frailty as a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older adults: Kashiwa study. Exp Gerontol. 2023;172:112075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seo EH, Kim H, Lee KH, Choo IH. Altered executive function in Pre-mild Cognitive Impairment. J Alzheimer’s Disease: JAD. 2016;54(3):933–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tabert MH, Manly JJ, Liu X, Pelton GH, Rosenblum S, Jacobs M, et al. Neuropsychological prediction of conversion to Alzheimer disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(8):916–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ikezaki H, Hashimoto M, Ishikawa T, Fukuhara R, Tanaka H, Yuki S, et al. Relationship between executive dysfunction and neuropsychiatric symptoms and impaired instrumental activities of daily living among patients with very mild Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;35(8):877–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosado-Artalejo C, Carnicero JA, Losa-Reyna J, Castillo C, Cobos-Antoranz B, Alfaro-Acha A, et al. Global performance of executive function is predictor of risk of Frailty and disability in older adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(9):980–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Naorungroj S, Schoenbach VJ, Beck J, Mosley TH, Gottesman RF, Alonso A et al. Cross-sectional associations of oral health measures with cognitive function in late middle-aged adults: a community-based study. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2013;144(12):1362-71.

  15. Yang HL, Li FR, Chen PL, Cheng X, Mao C, Wu XB, Tooth Loss. Denture use, and cognitive impairment in Chinese older adults: A Community Cohort Study. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2022;77(1):180–7.

  16. Albert SM. The dynamics of Frailty among older adults. JAMA Netw open. 2019;2(8):e198438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson TL, Gogniat MA, Miller LS. Frailty and cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Neuropsychol Rev. 2022;32(2):274–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lukacs JR. Sex differences in dental caries experience: clinical evidence, complex etiology. Clin Oral Invest. 2011;15(5):649–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kugimiya Y, Watanabe Y, Ueda T, Motokawa K, Shirobe M, Igarashi K, et al. Rate of oral frailty and oral hypofunction in rural community-dwelling older Japanese individuals. Gerodontology. 2020;37(4):342–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gordon EH, Hubbard RE. Differences in frailty in older men and women. Med J Australia. 2020;212(4):183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cruz-Moreira K, Alvarez-Cordova L, González-Palacios Torres C, Chedraui P, Jouvin J, Jiménez-Moleón JJ, et al. Prevalence of frailty and its association with oral hypofunction in older adults: a gender perspective. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gifford KA, Bell SP, Liu D, Neal JE, Turchan M, Shah AS, et al. Frailty is related to Subjective Cognitive decline in older women without dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(9):1803–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoops S, Nazem S, Siderowf AD, Duda JE, Xie SX, Stern MB, et al. Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2009;73(21):1738–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ye M, Xiong J, Zhao F, Sun S, Wang L, Zheng G. Comparison of Traditional Chinese Exercises and Nontraditional Chinese Exercise Modalities on Cognitive and Executive Function in Community Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: eCAM. 2020;2020:4380805.

  27. Bowie CR, Harvey PD. Administration and interpretation of the trail making test. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(5):2277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bian Y, Wang JC, Sun F, Sun ZY, Lin YJ, Liu Y, et al. Assessment of cerebrovascular reserve impairment using the breath-holding index in patients with leukoaraiosis. Neural Regeneration Res. 2019;14(8):1412–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dibello V, Lobbezoo F, Lozupone M, Sardone R, Ballini A, Berardino G, et al. Oral frailty indicators to target major adverse health-related outcomes in older age: a systematic review. GeroScience. 2023;45(2):663–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tanaka T, Hirano H, Ohara Y, Nishimoto M, Iijima K. Oral Frailty Index-8 in the risk assessment of new-onset oral frailty and functional disability among community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;94:104340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kent RD, Kim Y, Chen LM. Oral and laryngeal diadochokinesis across the life span: a scoping review of methods, Reference Data, and clinical applications. J Speech Lang Hear Research: JSLHR. 2022;65(2):574–623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. Journals Gerontol Ser Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Crow RS, Lohman MC, Titus AJ, Bruce ML, Mackenzie TA, Bartels SJ, et al. Mortality risk along the Frailty Spectrum: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2004. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(3):496–502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Watanabe D, Yoshida T, Yokoyama K, Yoshinaka Y, Watanabe Y, Kikutani T et al. Association between Mixing ability of masticatory functions measured using Color-changing chewing gum and Frailty among Japanese older adults: the Kyoto-Kameoka Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12).

  35. Gatsonis C, Sampson AR. Multiple correlation: exact power and sample size calculations. Psychol Bull. 1989;106(3):516–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van der Does de Willebois EML. Mesenteric SParIng versus extensive mesentereCtomY in primary ileocolic resection for ileocaecal Crohn’s disease (SPICY): study protocol for randomized controlled trial. BJS open. 2022;6(1).

  37. Kusama T, Takeuchi K, Kiuchi S, Aida J, Osaka K. Poor oral health and dementia risk under time-varying confounding: a cohort study based on marginal structural models. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023.

  38. Chao RY, Chen TF, Chang YL. Executive function predicts the validity of subjective memory complaints in older adults beyond demographic, emotional, and clinical factors. J Prev Alzheimer’s Disease. 2021;8(2):161–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Farias ST, Lau K, Harvey D, Denny KG, Barba C, Mefford AN. Early functional limitations in cognitively normal older adults predict Diagnostic Conversion to mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(6):1152–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Chu NM, Xue QL, McAdams-DeMarco MA, Carlson MC, Bandeen-Roche K, Gross AL. Frailty-a risk factor of global and domain-specific cognitive decline among a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling older adult U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. Age Ageing. 2021;50(5):1569–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen S, Honda T, Narazaki K, Chen T, Kishimoto H, Haeuchi Y, et al. Physical Frailty is Associated with Longitudinal decline in global cognitive function in non-demented older adults: a prospective study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018;22(1):82–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fabrício DM, Chagas MHN, Diniz BS. Frailty and cognitive decline. Translational Research: J Lab Clin Med. 2020;221:58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Markle-Reid M, Browne G. Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. J Adv Nurs. 2003;44(1):58–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ang S. Social Participation and Mortality among older adults in Singapore: does ethnicity explain gender differences? Journals Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Social Sci. 2018;73(8):1470–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sialino LD, van Oostrom SH, Wijnhoven HAH, Picavet S, Verschuren WMM, Visser M, et al. Sex differences in mental health among older adults: investigating time trends and possible risk groups with regard to age, educational level and ethnicity. Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(12):2355–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kostev K, Bohlken J, Jacob L. Association between Migraine Headaches and Dementia in more than 7,400 patients followed in General practices in the United Kingdom. J Alzheimer’s Disease: JAD. 2019;71(1):353–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tsai CK, Tsai CL, Lin GY, Yang FC, Wang SJ. Sex differences in chronic migraine: focusing on clinical features, pathophysiology, and treatments. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2022;26(5):347–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shanmugan S, Epperson CN. Estrogen and the prefrontal cortex: towards a new understanding of estrogen’s effects on executive functions in the menopause transition. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014;35(3):847–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stefanowski B, Kucharski M, Szeliga A, Snopek M, Kostrzak A, Smolarczyk R, et al. Cognitive decline and dementia in women after menopause: Prevention strategies. Maturitas. 2023;168:53–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the participants that joined in our study and we thank the scholars for their contributions to the research of oral frailty measurements which help to our study.

Funding

This study was supported by Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Project (Grant No: 22YJCZH089), Jiangsu Commission of Health Scientific Research Project (Grant No: Z2020028), Philosophy and Social Science Research Projects of Jiangsu Universities (Grant No: 2022SJYB0298), and Connotation Construction Project of Nanjing Medical University for Priority Academic of Nursing Science (Grant No: 2022-12).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yang Fei and Shuzhen Niu contributed equally to the manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, 101 Longmian Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing, China

    Yang Fei, Shuzhen Niu, Xueru Xi, Wenping Tang, Yue Zhao, Xiaohong Yu, Cheng Li, Xinru Li, Ying Liu, Yaxin Li, Yueheng Yin, Yan Cui & Xianwen Li

  2. Department of Geriatrics (Geriatric Neurology), the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 264 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, China

    Ge Zhang

Authors
  1. Yang Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuzhen Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xueru Xi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenping Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yue Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ge Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaohong Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xinru Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ying Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yaxin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yueheng Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yan Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Xianwen Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept and design: YF, SN, YC, YY, XWL, XX, WT, GZ, YZ, CL, XY, XRL, YL, YXL. Supervision of the study: XWL, YC, YY. Acquisition of data: YF, SN, XX, WT, GZ, YZ, CL, XY, XRL, YL, YXL, YC, XWL. Analysis and interpretation of data: YF, SN, XX, YY, XWL. Drafting of the manuscript: YF, SN, YY. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: YF, SN, XX, YY, YC, XWL. YF and SN contributed equally to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yueheng Yin or Yan Cui.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Nanjing Medical University (NMU2023-562). All participants signed the informed consent before the survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have 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

Fei, Y., Niu, S., Xi, X. et al. Physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and executive function among older adults especially for females: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr 24, 468 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05056-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05056-4

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us