# Masticatory Function in Elderly Individuals Living in Long‐Term Care Facilities in Brazil: Associations Between Objective and Subjective Measurements

## TL;DR

This study explores how objective and subjective measures of chewing ability relate to oral health in elderly Brazilian residents of long-term care facilities.

## Contribution

The study identifies distinct factors influencing objective and subjective masticatory function in elderly LTCF residents.

## Key findings

- Objective and subjective masticatory functions were significantly associated.
- Fewer natural teeth and posterior occluding pairs were linked to poorer objective chewing function.
- Self-perceived oral health and dry mouth symptoms were linked to poorer subjective chewing function.

## Abstract

Although objective and subjective masticatory function measures may correlate, associated oral health–related factors may differ, highlighting the need for comprehensive assessment to support tailored care in long‐term care facilities (LTCFs).

To investigate the association between objective and subjective masticatory function and the oral health status of older LTCF residents in Brazil.

This cross‐sectional study included 187 residents (mean age = 78.7 ± 9.2 years) from nine LTCFs. Masticatory function was evaluated objectively (bi‐coloured chewing gum) and subjectively (‘Do you have trouble biting or chewing any kind of food?’). Oral health status was assessed by self‐perceived oral health, the number of natural teeth and posterior occluding pairs (POPs), xerostomia and dental prosthesis requirement. Data were analysed using multiple regression (α = 0.05).

Objective and subjective masticatory function were associated (p < 0.001). Older age (p = 0.006), low number of natural teeth (p = 0.001) and POPs (p = 0.004) and the dental prosthesis requirement (p = 0.016) were associated with poorer objective masticatory function. Poor self‐perceived oral health (p = 0.001), low number of POPs (p = 0.013), severe xerostomia symptoms (p = 0.001) and dental prosthesis requirement (p = 0.030) were associated with poor subjective masticatory function.

Objective and subjective masticatory functions were associated and shared some common factors, number of POPs and the need for dental prostheses. However, objective measures (e.g., number of teeth) were linked to objective masticatory function, whereas self‐perceived factors (e.g., perceived oral health and xerostomia) were associated with subjective masticatory function.

Objective and subjective masticatory functions were associated, but their related factors differed, highlighting the importance of considering both objective and self‐perceived indicators when assessing masticatory dysfunction in LTCF residents.