Oral health-related quality of life in complete denture wearers depending on their socio-demographic background, prosthetic-related factors and clinical condition

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the differences in impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among complete denture wearers depending on their socio-demographic characteristics, prosthetic-related factors and oral status. Study Design: 51 patients aged 50-90 years treated, from 2005 to 2010, with at least one complete denture at the Department of Buccofacial Prostheses of the Complutense University (Madrid) were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. All of the participants answered the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) questionnaire. The additive scoring method was used. The prevalence of impacts was calculated by using the occasional threshold (OHIP-14sp score≥2). Socio-demographic and prosthetic-related variables were gathered. Patients underwent clinical examination to assess their oral condition. Descriptive probes and Chi-Square tests were run (p≤0.05). Results: The predominant participants’ profile was that of a man with a mean age of 69 years wearing complete dentures in both the maxilla and the mandible. The prevalence of impact was 23.5%, showing an average score of 19±9.8. The most affected domains were “functional limitation” and “physical pain”, followed by “physical disability”. Minor impacts were recorded for the psychological and social subscales (“psychological discomfort”, “psychological disability”, “social disability” and “handicap”). The prosthesis’ location significantly influenced the overall patient satisfaction, the lower dentures being the less comfortable. Having a complete removable denture as antagonist significantly hampered the patient satisfaction. Patients without prosthetic stomatitis and those who need repairing or changing their prostheses, recorded significantly higher OHIP-14sp total scores. Conclusions: The use of conventional complete dentures brings negative impacts in the OHRQoL of elderly patients, mainly in case of lower prostheses that required reparation or substitution, with a removable total denture as antagonist. The prosthetic stomatitis in this study was always associated to other severe illness, which may have influenced the self-perceived discomfort with the prostheses, as those patients were daily medicated with painkillers. Key words:Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, complete denture, elderly patients.

Validation of the ‘Quality of Life with Implant Prostheses (QoLIP-10)’ questionnaire for wearers of cement-retained implant-supported restorations

“…All of the data collected were processed as explained below, according to statistical methods used in related research. [4][5][6]22,25 Descriptive statistics 4,22,26 and percentages for qualitative and categorical variables were calculated. 5,6 The main psychometric capacity (reliability and validity) 22 of the QoLIP-10 questionnaire was tested in cement-retained implant prosthesis wearers.…”

Calidad de Vida Relacionada con Salud Oral: Impacto de Diversas Situaciones Clínicas Odontológicas y Factores Socio-Demográficos. Revisión de la Literatura

“…Siendo los dominios más afectados la limitación funcional, dolor físico y discapacidad física (Perea et al, 2013).…”

Oral Health- Related Quality of Life Assessed in Adults: Integrative Review

“…Surge como instrumento único de avaliação em 13 estudos: na Jordânia (Al Habashneh et al, 2012); no Brasil (Pereira et al, 2009); Japão (Inukai et al,2010); na China (Zheng et al, 2011); no Irão (Motallebnejad et al, 2011); Finlândia (Miettinen et al, 2012;Rusanen et al, 2012;Silvola et al, 2012); Espanha (Gil-Montoya et al, 2013;Montero et al, 2009;Perea et al, 2013); Nova Zelândia (Thomson et al, 2006) e com indivíduos croatas e eslovenos (RenerSitar et al, 2008). É utilizado em simultâneo com outro instrumento numestudo desenvolvido noCanadá por Locker e Gibson (2005).…”

“…Destaca-se a utilização da variável referente à presença ou número de dentes naturais presente em 10 estudos (Gil-Montoya et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2014;Inukai et al, 2010;Locker & Gibson, 2005;Montero et al, 2008;Motallebnejad et al, 2011;Perea et al, 2013;Pistorius et al, 2013;Wright, 2009;Thomson et al, 2006;); a presença de dentes deteriorados (cariados), perdidos ou obturados e doenças periodontais em 4 estudos (Montero et al, 2008;Montero et al, 2009;Motallebnejad et al, 2011;Thomson et al, 2006); a má oclusão avaliada em 4 estudos (Hsu et al, 2014;Rusanen et al, 2012;Sardenberg et al, 2011;Silvola et al,2012); a utilização de próteses dentárias em 3 estudos (Montero et al, 2008;Perea et al, 2013;Pistorius et al, 2013;Wright et al, 2009); a xerostomia em 2 estudos (Perea et al, 2013;Thomson et al, 2006); a dor facial em 2 estudos Zheng et al, 2011); as disfunções temporomandibulares em 3 estudos (Miettinen et al, 2012;Pereira et al, 2009;Rusanen et al, 2012) e a dor de dentes em apenas 1 estudo (Rener-Sitar et al, 2008).…”