Figures
- FIGURE 1
Flow diagram of study participant selection.
- FIGURE 2
A principal coordinate analysis plot showing similarity relationships between bacterial composition of the tongue microbiota from 484 participants using unweighted (a) and weighted (b) UniFrac metric. The points corresponding to the participants with and without airflow limitation are depicted in different colours. The ellipses cover 67% of the samples belonging to each group.
- FIGURE 3
Adjusted odds ratio of bacterial amounts of three predominant operational taxonomic units (OTUs) for airflow limitation in logistic regression models. The bacterial amounts of each taxon were calculated by multiplying total bacterial density and the relative abundance of each OTU, and were classified into four categories based on quartile values (quartile 1 to quartile 4). A logistic regression model was constructed for each OTU for adjusting the effects of age, sex, body mass index, smoking intensity, alcohol intake, presence of decayed teeth and periodontal condition.
Tables
- TABLE 1
General and oral conditions of participants with and without airflow limitation
Normal airflow Airflow limitation p-value Subjects n 384 100 Age years 74.8±2.9 75.8±3.0 0.002# Female 226 (58.9) 40 (40.0) <0.001¶ Body mass index 23.4±3.5 22.4±2.6 0.002# Smoking intensity <0.001¶ Nonsmokers 249 (64.8) 41 (41.0) Moderate smokers 54 (14.1) 16 (16.0) Heavy smokers 81 (21.1) 43 (43.0) Current smokers 16 (4.2) 16 (16.0) <0.001¶ Never drinkers 148 (38.5) 31 (31.0) 0.164¶ Physically active 224 (58.3) 60 (60.0) 0.763¶ Dental conditions Teeth n 21.0±7.3 21.6±7.1 0.460# Subjects with decayed teeth 69 (18.0) 26 (26.0) 0.071¶ Caries-experienced teeth % 66.7±26.1 64.7±24.7 0.486# Max plaque index 1.2±0.7 1.1±0.7 0.616# Periodontal conditions+ 0.159¶ No/mild 264 (71.0) 61 (61.0) Moderate/severe 108 (29.0) 35 (35.0) Edentulous individuals 12 (3.1) 4 (4.0) 0.753§ Tongue microbiota conditions Total bacterial density log copies 8.3±0.5 8.4±0.4 0.015# Total bacterial densityƒ 0.043¶ Low 201 (52.3) 41 (41.0) High 183 (47.7) 59 (59.0) Total fungal density log copies 4.0±0.6 3.9±0.6 0.727# Data are presented as mean±sd or n (%), unless otherwise stated. #: Student's t-test; ¶: Chi-squared test; +: only 468 dentulous individuals were included; §: Fisher's exact test; ƒ: stratified by median value.
- TABLE 2
Odds ratio for airflow limitation in logistic regression analysis
Odds ratio Crude (95% CI) Adjusted (95% CI)# Age 1.13 (1.05–1.22)** 1.12 (1.04–1.21)** Male 2.15 (1.38–3.38)*** 0.98 (0.45–2.10) Body mass index 0.91 (0.84–0.97)** 0.87 (0.80–0.94)*** Smoking intensity Nonsmokers 1 1 Moderate smokers 1.80 (0.92–3.39)+ 2.15 (0.91–5.05) Heavy smokers 3.22 (1.97–5.31)*** 3.81 (1.73–8.80)** Never drinkers 0.72 (0.44–1.13)+ 1.10 (0.62–1.95) Physically active 1.07 (0.69–1.69) Teeth n 1.01 (0.98–1.04) Presence of decayed teeth 1.60 (0.95–2.67)+ 1.32 (0.74–2.30) Periodontal condition No/mild 1 1 Moderate/severe 1.40 (0.87–2.24)+ 1.04 (0.62–1.73) Edentulous 1.44 (0.39–4.30) 1.31 (0.34–4.27) Total bacterial density on the tongue¶ Low 1 1 High 1.58 (1.02–2.48)* 1.61 (1.01–2.60)* #: each odds ratio was adjusted by age, sex, body mass index, smoking intensity, alcohol intake, presence of decayed teeth and periodontal condition with p-values <0.2 in a bivariate analysis; ¶: stratified by median value; +: p<0.2; *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.
Supplementary Material
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary material 00616-2020.SUPPLEMENT
Figure S1 00616-2020.figureS1
