BackgroundOral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) is conceived as a multidimensional construct. Here our aim was to investigate the dimensional structure of OHQoL as measured by the Spanish versions of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires applied simultaneously.MethodsWe recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed by participants but the OIDP was completed in face-to-face interviews. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the underlying dimensions of the OHQoL construct assessed by both instruments. This factorial structure was later confirmed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using several estimators of goodness of fit indices.ResultsEFA and the CFA identified and respectively confirmed a set of 3 underlying factors in both questionnaires that could be interpreted as functional limitation, pain-discomfort, and psychosocial impacts. The model achieved was seen to fit properly for both instruments, but the factorial structure was clearer for the OIDP.ConclusionsThe results provide evidence for construct equivalence in the latent factors assessed by both OIDP and OHIP-14, suggesting that OHQoL is a three-dimensional construct. The prevalence of impact on these three factors was coherent between both indicators, pain-discomfort having the highest prevalence, followed by psycho-social impact, and functional limitation.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the utility and validity of two popular socio-dental indicators for describing the impact of oral conditions on quality of life applied simultaneously. Study design: We recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed before the oral examination and the face to face interview of the OIDP was performed. Both instruments were compared by evaluating its reliability and its validity. Results and Conclusions: The standardised Cronbach alphas for OHIP-14 and OIDP were 0.89 and 0.74 respectively. OIDP showed lower face validity but higher content validity than OHIP-14. Both indicators showed high construct and criterion validity, since individuals perceiving need for dental treatment or having any complaint about their mouth obtained significantly higher total OIDP and OHIP scores than their counterparts. The prevalence of impacts was much higher using the OHIP (80.7%) than the OIDP (27.8%).

No abstract