Impact of Wearing Dentures on Dietary Intake, Nutritional Status, and Eating: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:A key purpose of denture provision is to enable eating, yet the body of evidence pertaining to the impact of dentures on wide-ranging nutritional outcomes has not been systematically reviewed.Objectives:To systematically review published evidence pertaining to the effect of wearing removable dental prosthesis on dietary intake, nutritional status, eating function, and eating related–quality of life (ERQoL).Methods:Eight questions relating to the impact of wearing dentures on nutritional outcomes were addressed. The target population was healthy adults aged ≥18 y. Data sources included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed. Included were all human epidemiologic studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa score was used for appraisal of study quality. Harvest plots, vote counting, and accompanying narrative provided the basis for synthesis.Results:Of the 1,245 records identified, 134 were retrieved and eligibility assessed by 2 reviewers, and 41 studies were included in the synthesis (14 rated good quality, 20 fair, and 7 poor). The balance of data supported a positive impact of wearing full (5/7 studies) or partial (3/3 studies) dentures (vs. no dentures) on nutritional status, though no clear direction of effect was detected for the impact of dentures on dietary intake. The balance of data clearly showed that objective measures of eating function were compromised in full (14/15 studies) and partial (6/7 studies) denture wearers as compared with the dentate. Data showed that ERQoL was also compromised in denture wearers as compared with the dentate (3/3 studies). However, data showed a positive impact of wearing dentures on ERQoL (5/5 studies) as opposed to wearing no dentures.Conclusion:The balance of evidence shows that despite no clear pattern on impact of wearing dentures on measured dietary intake, in those with tooth loss, wearing dentures can have a positive impact on nutritional status and enjoyment of eating.Knowledge Transfer Statement:The results of this systematic review can be used to advocate for health care services to address prosthodontic need to benefit nutritional outcomes. The findings will be of use in educating health care professionals on the impact of wearing dentures and not addressing prosthodontic need on nutritional outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".