No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of three versions of the Dutch Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL), for clinical use with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients. To that end, two abbreviated OHIP versions (OHIP-NL14 and OHIP-NL5) were developed by respectively selecting 14 and five items from the officially translated and culturally adapted original 49-item OHIP-NL questionnaire. A total of 245 consecutive patients, referred by their dentist to the TMD clinic of the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (77% women; mean age ± s.d. = 41·0 ± 14·9 years), completed the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) axis II questionnaire and the OHIP-NL. Reliability and validity of all three OHIP versions were compared, and their associations with four psychological axis II variables, indicating the level of impairment of patients with TMD, were examined. According to guidelines for clinical application, internal consistency scores were sufficient for OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14, but insufficient for OHIP-NL5. Test-retest reliability (n = 64) was excellent for OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14 and fair to good for OHIP-NL5. For all three versions, there was evidence for score validity: associations between OHIP summary scores on the one hand and validation variables and other RDC/TMD axis II variables on the other hand met the expectations and were statistically significant (P < 0·001). In conclusion, the OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14 both performed comparatively well and better than the OHIP-NL5. When the length of the questionnaire (i.e. the time needed for its completion) is an issue, the OHIP-14 would therefore be the preferred version.

We reported the development and psychometric evaluation of a Swedish 14-item and a five-item short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile. The 14-item version was derived from the English-language short form developed by Slade in1997. The five-item version was derived from the German-language short form developed by John et al. in 2006. Validity, reliability and normative values for the two short form summary scores were determined in a random sample of the adult Swedish population (response rate: 46%, N = 1366 subjects). Subjects with sufficient OHRQoL information to calculate a summary score (N = 1309) were on average 50·1 ± 17.4 years old, and 54% were women. Short form summary scores correlated highly with the 49-item OHIP-S (r ≥ 0.97 for OHIP-S14, r ≥ 0.92 for OHIP-S5) and with self-report of oral health (r ≥ 0.41). Reliability, measured with Cronbach's alpha (0.91 for OHIP-S14, 0.77 for OHIP-S5), was sufficient. In the general population, 50% of the subjects had ≥2 OHIP-S14 score points and 10% had ≥11 points, respectively. Among subjects with their own teeth only and/or fixed dental prostheses and with partial removable dental prostheses, 50% of the population had ≥2 OHIP-S14 score points, and 10% had ≥11 points. For subjects with complete dentures, the corresponding figures were 3 and 24 points. OHIP-S5 medians for subjects in the three population groups were 1, 1 and 2 points. Swedish 14-item and 5-item short forms of the OHIP have sufficient psychometric properties and provide a detailed overview about impaired OHRQoL in Sweden. The norms will serve as reference values for future studies.

Robinow syndrome (RS) is a rare genetic condition with two inheritance forms, autosomal dominant RS (DRS) and autosomal recessive RS (RRS). The characteristic features of this syndrome overlap in both inheritance forms, which make the clinical differential diagnosis difficult, especially in isolated cases. The objective of this study was to identify differences in the craniofacial and intraoral phenotype of patients with DRS and RRS. The characteristics and frequency of 13 facial and 13 intraoral clinical features associated with both DRS and RRS were assessed by direct dysmorphology examination and using a digital photographic analysis in 12 affected subjects. Although the phenotypic presentation varied and overlapped in the two forms of the syndrome, there were differences in the severity of the craniofacial and intraoral features. The craniofacial dysmorphology of RS was more severe in RRS. Nasal anomalies were the most frequent craniofacial features in both DRS and RRS. In contrast, intraoral features such as wide retromolar ridge, alveolar ridge deformation, malocclusion, dental crowding and hypodontia were more severe in patients with DRS. Overall, facial characteristics appeared less pronounced in adult subjects compared to younger subjects. Craniofacial and intraoral findings are highly variable in RS, with abnormalities of the intraoral structures being more prominent in the DRS form. We propose that the difference in the alveolar ridge deformation pattern and severity of other intraoral characteristics could enhance the differential diagnosis of the two forms of this syndrome.

This study reports the findings and challenges of the assessment of oro-facial aesthetics in the Swedish general population and the development of normative values for the self-reporting Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES). In a Swedish national sample of 1406 adult subjects (response rate: 47%), OES decile norms were established. The influence of sociodemographics (gender, age, and education), oral health status and general health status on OES scores was analysed. Mean ± standard deviation of OES scores was 50.3 ± 15.6 units (0, worst score; 70, best score); <1% of the subjects had the minimum score of 0, and 11% had the maximum score of 70 OES units. Orofacial Esthetic Scale score differences were (i) substantial (>5 OES units) for subjects with excellent/very good versus good to poor oral or general health status; ii) small (2 units), but statistically significant for gender (P = 0.01) and two age groups (P = 0.02), and (iii) absent for subjects with college versus no college education (P = 0.31) or with and without dentures (P = 0.90). To estimate normative values for a self-reporting health status, instrument is considered an important step in standardisation, and the developed norms provide a frame of reference in the general population to interpret the Orofacial Esthetic Scale scores.