Functional oral health‐related quality of life impact: A systematic review in populations with tooth loss

Abstract

Patients perceive the impact of oral disorder in four major areas, the dimensions of oral health‐related quality life (OHRQoL) Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact. The functional aspect is essential given the need of chewing, biting, speech and swallowing. The objective of this study was to identify OHRQoL information for dental subjects with functional oral health problems. In a systematic review, distinct and clinically relevant groups of dental subject samples, in this study called “population groups,” with such functional OHRQoL information based on the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) were identified (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017064033). The search strategy was “Oral Health Impact Profile” or OHIP. Searches were conducted in the PubMed interface of the Medline database, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsyINFO on 8 June 2017 and updated on 14 January 2019. Published OHIP domain data of different versions were recalculated into OHIP‐14`s Physical Disability domain score, characterising the subject's Oral Function impact. 3,653 potentially abstracts were screened. We identified 78 publications reporting dimensional information on 154 subject samples with 52 populations. A typical mean functional impact for partially dentate subjects was 1.6 units on a 0 to 8 unit metric, while for edentate subjects, the mean functional impact was 2.6 units. The functional impact score ranged from 0 to 7.9 units with 50% of the patient samples located between 0.8 and 2.6 units. For the first time, we provide normalised and therefore comparable metric information about the functional OHRQoL impact for a substantial number of functional oral conditions.

The impact of oro‐facial pain conditions on oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review

“…It should be noted, however, that for the oral mucosal pain group, there may be an overlap in patient populations between the studies as six studies originate from the same research group. This rich information is complemented by information for 154 dental patient populations suffering from substantial functional OHRQoL impact, 43 63 patient populations suffering from a principal aesthetical impact 44 and 25 patient populations suffering from broader psychosocial impact 45 . Interestingly, while OHIP is a dPROM for adults, standardised OHRQoL information, including Orofacial Pain data, is also available for a substantial number of paediatric populations 46 .…”

Narratives about a stigma: attributing meaning to the early loss of deciduous teeth on children's caregivers

“…Some studies have described these experiences on adults. 3,4 For children, studies mainly describe the physical aspect caused by the early loss of primary teeth that include malocclusion, either retardation or acceleration of permanent tooth eruption, 5 and impaired pronunciation and chewing functionality, 6,7 yet few studies assess the social dimensions. Furthermore, no study to date has assessed the effects of these issues in children's lives, from the perspective of their caregivers, employing a qualitative research approach through a phenomenological lens.…”

Normative and subjective need for dental prosthesis: accuracy and agreement in a population based-study

“…Tooth loss reflects the cumulative effect of dental diseases, mainly dental caries and periodontal diseases, and consequently increases with age 4 . Absence of teeth lead to impairment in daily routine, affecting mastication, nutrition 5 , phonation and aesthetics, which culminates in high impact on quality of life of individuals 6,7,8 . In the Brazilian Oral Health National Survey performed in 2010, individuals with need for prosthesis presented an impact 50 higher in their oral health-related quality of life when compared with those individuals without need for prosthesis 6 .…”

“…Concordancia (kappa: 0,43) y precisión entre la necesidad normativa y subjetiva de prótesis dental fue baja (SE: 56,5, IC95%: 50,3-62,6; SP: 85,8, IC95%: 81,1-89,7; PPV: 79,1, IC95%: 72,6-84,7; NPV: 67,3, IC95%: 62,1-72,2). Cuando consideramos a individuos con pérdidas de dientes anteriores, los resultados mostraron una buena concordancia (kappa: 0,82) y precisión entre necesidad normativa y subjetiva (SE: 93,3, IC95%: 68,1-99,8; SP: 88,9, IC95%: 51,8-99,7; PPV: 93,3, IC95%: 68, 8); NPV: 88,9, IC95%: 51, 7). La dirección y magnitud de las asociaciones con necesidad normativa y subjetiva fueron similares.…”