The terms 'health-related quality of life' and 'quality of life' are now in common use to describe the outcomes of oral health conditions and therapy for those conditions. In addition, there has been a proliferation of measures designed to quantify those outcomes. These measures, which were initially designated as socio-dental indicators or subjective oral health indicators are now more usually referred to as measures of oral health-related quality of life (OH-QoL). This is based on the assumption that the functional and psychosocial impacts they document must, of necessity, affect the quality of life. While this assumption has been subject to critical scrutiny in medicine, this is not the case with dentistry. Consequently, exactly what is being measured by indexes of OH-QoL is somewhat unclear. Based on the debate between Gill and Feinstein and Guyatt and Cook, we outline a number of criteria by means of which the construct addressed by measures of OH-QoL may be assessed. These are concerned with how the measures were developed and validated. These criteria are then used to appraise five of the many measures that have been developed over the past 20 years--the GOHAI, OHIP, OIDP, COHQoL and OH-QoL. The main conclusion is that while all document the frequency of the functional and psychosocial impacts that emanate from oral disorders they do not unequivocally establish the meaning and significance of those impacts. Consequently, the claim that oral disorders affect the quality of life has yet to be clearly demonstrated. Verifying this claim requires further qualitative studies of the outcomes of oral disorders as perceived by patients and persons, and the concurrent use of measures that more explicitly address the issue of quality of life.

The loss of natural teeth compromises chewing efficiency, and edentulous patients often have a diet that is deficient in fibre and vitamins. Prostheses that are retained on implants offer the possibility of overcoming some of the limitations of conventional dentures in terms of chewing efficiency. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that improvement in satisfaction with oral prostheses would result in improved food selection in edentulous patients. This prospective study involved three groups, namely (i) subjects who requested and received implants to stabilise a complete fixed or removable prosthesis (IG, n = 26), (ii) edentulous subjects who requested implant prostheses, but received conventional dentures (CDG1, n = 22), and (iii) edentulous subjects who requested and received conventional dentures (CDG2, n = 35). Data were collected using validated questionnaires pre- and postoperatively. Prior to treatment, all subjects were asked whether they ate a variety of hard and soft foods, to indicate the degree of difficulty they experienced when chewing these foods, and to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of their maxillary and mandibular complete dentures. Following the completion of treatment, subjects completed the questionnaires again. Pre- and postoperative data were compared. Subjects who received implant prostheses reported significant improvement in chewing hard and soft foods. CDG2 subjects also reported improvement, but CDG1 subjects reported no change or even deterioration following treatment. Despite reported improvement in satisfaction with comfort and ability to chew food, 30-50% of IG and CDG2 subjects still avoided eating foods such as carrot and apple. This suggests that, in the absence of tailored dietary advice, apparently successful prosthetic rehabilitation does not necessarily result in a satisfactory diet.

The purpose of this multicentre observational study was to determine patient satisfaction with either conventional dentures or mandibular 2-implant overdentures in a 'real world' setting. Two hundred and three edentulous patients (mean age 68·8 ± 10·4 years) were recruited at eight centres located in North America, South America and Europe. The patients were provided with new mandibular conventional dentures or implant overdentures supported by two implants and ball attachments. At baseline and at 6 months post-treatment, they rated their satisfaction with their mandibular prostheses on 100-mm visual analogue scale questionnaires. One hundred and two (50·2%) participants had valid baseline and 6-month satisfaction data. Although both groups reported improvements, the implant overdenture group reported significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew. These results suggest that edentulous patients who choose mandibular implant overdentures have significantly greater improvements in satisfaction, despite their relatively higher cost, than those who choose new conventional dentures.

The use of ridge-mapping to assess bone levels available for implant placement in the anterior maxilla avoids some of the problems associated with CT scanning. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of ridge-mapping callipers in determining body ridge widths in the anterior maxilla prior to dental implant surgery. A modified surgical stent was designed to locate the beaks of ridge-mapping callipers at the same points on the jaw before and after mucoperiosteal flap reflection. Eleven subjects were included in the study. Measurements (n = 100) were made at 25 implant sites, 50 "pre-operative" and 50 "intra-operative" at 3 mm and 6 mm distances from the crest of the ridge. There were statistically significant (P < 0.0001) differences between pre- and intra-operative measurements. Based on pre-operative measurements, clinical judgements were made as to whether supplementary procedures such as guided bone regeneration would be required. Unanticipated supplementary procedures were required at 10 fixture sites. The findings indicate that ridge-mapping alone is insufficient to accurately predict bone available for implantation in the anterior maxilla. It is suggested that ridge-mapping may provide reliable information about bone levels when the labial aspect of the anterior ridge is not markedly concave.

This is the last article written by Moyra Allen prior to her death in 1996. Allen believed that nursing has a vital role to play in reorienting the Canadian health care system to goals more appropriate to our rapidly changing society—the development of healthful living styles, healthy families, and healthy communities. First, she argued, we must separate the ideas of health and illness. Health is fundamentally a social phenomenon, a way of living or behaving that is readily communicated within such institutions as the family and across groups through the media and community life. She asked: What are the resources that families/groups require to recognize and develop their potential for healthful living? How can professionals work with families in this process? In this article, she lays out an organizing plan or model with which to seek answers to these questions and the inquiry process through which the model-building process evolved.