The study was conducted in the Qingdao area, located at the east coast of Shandong Province, the latter situated in Eastern China. Shandong is one of the largest provinces in China in terms of population (94 million in 2008) and economy. Qingdao City has approximately 3 million inhabitants. Qingdao City has direct jurisdiction over the surrounding rural territory in Shandong Province, including five county-level cities (approximately 200.000–400.000 residents each) and the counties surrounding these cities. Each rural county comprises 40–80 small rural villages. The total area of Qingdao (urban and rural) is approximately 10,000 km2 with a coastline of approximately 730 km and has approximately 8 million inhabitants.
Sampling method
For this study, a cross-sectional survey, representing 1,588 subjects aged ≥40 years living in urban and rural areas in Qingdao, Shandong Province, was conducted. To calculate the sample size needed, it was decided that the sample should allow for multivariable logistic regression with at least 12 independent variables among dentate subjects. This implies that at least 120 observations of the least prevalent part of a dichotomous variable among dentate subjects are necessary. Using 8 % prevalence as a worst-case scenario, a total sample size of 1,500 is needed to attain the 120 observations needed. To allow for an estimated 5 % prevalence of edentulous subjects, the targeted population was increased to 1,575.
Subjects were selected randomly from administrative lists of residents of communities or villages provided by local authorities and lists of employees of factories. Inclusion aimed at proportional distribution according to age categories, gender, and place of residence (urban or rural). Data were collected in 2009 and 2010.
The urban sample was constructed after consulting local authorities on the basis of accessibility, and comprised 11 communities and four factories in Qingdao City. Administrators of the communities informed and invited their residents for participation in this study. The examination venue usually was a neighborhood community office or a social center for the elderly. A total of 570 community inhabitants and 193 employees from factories were included on the basis of voluntary participation. As truly representative sampling was not feasible the pathfinder sampling method was adopted incorporating sufficient examination sites to cover relevant groups of the population intended [21]. It appeared that subjects of certain age categories were underrepresented in the initial urban sample (mostly males). Therefore, a complementary convenient sub-sample, drawn from community residents attending a health centre while they were waiting for a periodical check-up, was eventually included. Fifty-three subjects were included in this way.
For the rural sample, one county (Zhugou) considered representative for northeast Shandong Province was chosen on the basis of accessibility for investigating dental health status and cooperation from local authorities. This county (a predominantly agrarian area with a low population density and a total population of approximately 36,000) is located approximately 120 km northwest from Qingdao City and comprises 56 villages ranging from 153 to 1,583 inhabitants. On the basis of information from the local authorities, it appeared that there were large differences in income among the villages. As gross domestic product (GDP) was expected to be related with socio-economic status (SES), 10 villages with different GDP were selected randomly: three villages out of 19 with highest 2008 GDP; four out of 18 with middle GDP, and three out of 19 with lowest GDP. Next, subjects from these villages were randomly selected using administrative name-lists. In cases where subjects were invited but did not show up (n = 347, 45 %), other subjects were randomly drawn from the same sampling lists.
The research was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the ethics committee of the medical school at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Participants
Of the 1,588 subjects participating in the epidemiological study, 126 subjects (8 %) were edentulous in one or both jaws and were excluded from the present analyses. The remaining 1,462 subjects dentate in upper and lower jaw were included (Table 1). A previous report of this survey revealed that of all dentate subjects, 59 % (n = 861) had a natural dentition without any tooth replacement, 30 % had an FDP (n = 441), and 11 % (n = 160) had an RDP. Forty-three subjects (3 % of the total sample) had both FDP and RDP. The majority of subjects with FDP (57 %) had one or two teeth replaced; the majority of RDPs replaced three or more teeth (78 %) [20]. More details with respect to number of teeth and tooth replacements have been described in that report.
Table 1 Number (%) of included subjects (n = 1,462) dentate in upper and lower jaw according to gender and place of residence, distribution of SES, age (minimum, maximum, and mean), and OHIP-14CN total score (minimum, maximum, and mean)
Questionnaire
Subjects were asked to complete a structured questionnaire that was used previously in a study in Vietnam [19] and translated into Mandarin. The Chinese version was checked for language adequacy by a panel of dentists and pilot tested on 20 Chinese subjects to assess clarity. Some minor modifications were made based on the results of the pilot. The questionnaire included the Chinese short version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14CN) [22], demographic information (age, gender, and place of residence), SES (modified Kuppuswami’s SES classification [23]), and questions that asked whether the subject was able to chew eight different foods common for Chinese people. The eight foods were listed randomly in the questionnaire and included four foods that Chinese people consider as soft (cooked rice, steamed bread, Shaobing (Chinese style baked roll), meat) and four that are considered as hard (raw vegetables, raw carrots, apples, and nuts). Perceived difficulty of chewing was scored as: 1 = very easy to chew; 2 = minor problems with chewing, got used to it; 3 = minor problems, cannot get used to it; 4 = difficult to chew, not avoiding this food; 5 = very difficult to chew, not avoiding; 6 = very difficult to chew, avoiding this food; 7 = not avoiding this food, never eating it. OHIP-14CN was included in the questionnaire to assess OHRQoL. Responses on each OHIP question were given on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = hardly ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often) for a reference period of 3 months.
Subjects not able to complete the questionnaire themselves (e.g., because of illiteracy or visual impairment) were helped by an assistant who read aloud the questions and recorded the answers. After completion, the questionnaire was checked for unrecorded items, and if applicable, subjects were requested to complete the form.
Clinical examination
After obtaining verbal consent from the participants, a clinical examination was conducted by a calibrated examiner following the procedures and diagnostic criteria recommended by the World Health Organization [24]. Inter-observer agreements between the principal investigator and experienced researchers in the field on DMFT variables were excellent (kappa’s ≥ 0.89). Of all variables recorded, only the presence of teeth (including third molars), tooth type, number and location of natural POPs, and tooth replacements were considered in the present study. Roots were considered non-functional teeth with respect to chewing ability, and therefore considered as missing teeth. A natural POP was considered as a posterior occluding pair of natural teeth. A distinction was made between teeth replaced by FDP and those replaced by RDP. A replaced tooth was defined as a missing tooth replaced by FDP or RDP. Mean numbers of POPs added by FDP or RDP were also considered.
Dental functional status classification system
In the classification system [19], dentitions were classified on the basis of a dichotomized five level branching hierarchy in which the criteria applied on the levels are based on conditions that reflect functionality (Table 2). With regard to each level in the branching hierarchy, the number of natural teeth, the tooth types present, and the number of natural POPs were calculated. Subjects were classified in two ways. First, subjects were classified on the basis of their configuration of natural teeth only (Classnat). Next they were reclassified on the basis of configurations including natural teeth plus teeth replaced by FDP (ClassF) and/or RDP (ClassR) [20].
Table 2 Levels and criteria for dichotomization of the step-by-step branching hierarchy used and percentages of subjects (n = 1,462) classified in the subsequent categories based on natural teeth only (Classnat)
Data analyses
Two approaches were used to analyze chewing ability in relation to dental conditions. First, the relationships were analyzed for the conditions of the different dental regions separately. In the second approach, chewing ability was related to the hierarchical functional classification system, in which the dental regions are considered in the context of the conditions of the dentition as a whole.
In the first approach—in which the relationship between chewing ability and the separate dental regions is analyzed—multivariable logistic regression models were used. In these models ‘chewing problems’ was the dependent variable; the conditions at the levels II to V (≥10 teeth in each jaw, anterior region complete, premolar region sufficient, and molar region sufficient) and tooth replacement were the independent variables. Possible associations between the condition of the separate dental regions and chewing problems were adjusted for a number of background variables. The following background variables were included in the models: OHIP-14CN total score (dichotomized using the sample median as the cut-off point); questionnaire administration (completely self-administered vs. (partly) assisted by a dental assistant); the demographic variables age (age categories 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70 years and older), gender, and place of residence (urban or rural); and socio-economic status (three levels).
With respect to chewing ability of the eight separate foods, the answers ‘very easy to chew’, ‘minor problems with chewing, got used to it’, and ‘minor problems, cannot get used to it’ were considered ‘no or minor problems with chewing’; the answers ‘difficult to chew, not avoiding this food’, ‘very difficult to chew, not avoiding’, and ‘very difficult to chew, avoid this food’ were considered ‘chewing problems’. In the analysis of chewing ability of the respective foods, outcomes were dichotomized as follows: ‘no or minor chewing problems’ (scores 1,2, and 3) vs. ‘chewing problems’ (scores 4, 5, and 6). Score 7 (‘not avoiding this food, never eating it’) was considered missing.
Combined soft and hard foods were analyzed at a different level in which a more stringent criterion was applied. Cut-off for dichotomization here was defined: ‘no chewing problems’ (score 1 (‘very easy to chew’) for each of the four combined foods) vs. ‘chewing problems’ (score >1 for at least one of the combined foods).
The performance of the multivariable logistic models was expressed as the percentages of subjects having chewing problems predicted by (1) the dental conditions only and (2) all variables. To express the performance of the logistic models, the area under the curve (AUC) statistic is used. An AUC of 0.5 indicates a total absence of model fit; an AUC of 1 belongs to a situation where model fit is perfect. Although the models are etiologic by nature and not meant as a predictive tool, the percentage predicted correctly are presented as an additional indication of the model fit.
In the second approach—in which the relationship between chewing ability and dental functional status is analyzed—likelihood ratios were calculated after dichotomization (meeting vs. not meeting the respective dental conditions). These likelihood ratios express the extent to which a given condition, for instance having at least 10 teeth in each jaw, discriminates between people with and without chewing problems with soft (Ls) and hard foods (Lh), respectively. A likelihood ratio of 1 indicates a classification criterion that is not discriminatory.
Both approaches were applied to the dental conditions based on (1) natural teeth only (Classnat) and subsequently (2) on levels based on natural teeth plus teeth replaced by FDP (ClassF) and/or RDP (ClassR).
R software version 2.13.1 was used for the statistical analyses [25].