Oral health-related quality-of-life in patients to be treated with fixed or removable partial dental prostheses

Özhayat, Esben Boeskov; Gotfredsen, Klaus

doi:10.3109/00016357.2011.654249

Cited by 18 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The higher the score, the worse the patient finds his/her OHRQoL (range 0‐196). If an item had score 3 or 4, it was considered problematic and the frequency of problematic items was calculated …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oral health‐related quality of life, oral aesthetics and oral function in head and neck cancer patients after oral rehabilitation

Fromm

Gotfredsen

Wessel

et al. 2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is diagnosed in more than 500 000 patients every year worldwide with increasing prevalence. Oral rehabilitation is often needed after HNC treatment to regain oral function, aesthetics and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). The objectives were to evaluate OHRQoL, oral aesthetics and oral function after oral rehabilitation in HNC patients and compare it to that of non‐HNC patients. Eighteen patients treated for HNC who subsequently had oral rehabilitation (2014‐2017), and a control group of eighteen age‐ and gender‐matched non‐HNC patients treated with removable prostheses (2014‐2018) were included in a cross‐sectional study. The OHRQoL was assessed by the Oral Health Impact Profile 49 questionnaire (OHIP‐49), the oral aesthetics by the Prosthetic Esthetic Index (PEI) and the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES), and the oral function by the Nordic Orofacial Test‐Screening (NOT‐S). The HNC patients had worse oral function and OHRQoL than the control patients (mean NOT‐S score 4.56 vs 0.56, P < 0.01 and mean OHIP‐49 score 42.50 vs 20.94, P = 0.050). When including number of replaced teeth and type of prosthesis in the tests, no significant difference in OHRQoL was found between the groups. No difference was found in the overall aesthetic outcomes (mean PEI total score 32.28 vs 30.67, P = 0.367 and mean OES total score 48.78 vs 53.56, P = 0.321). Multiple regression analyses showed that being HNC patient compared to control patient impaired the oral function. Oral function is significantly impaired in HNC patients compared to non‐HNC patients after oral rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the OHIP‐49, a masticatory evaluation was also found, the OHIP‐Mas. It was found as the sum of the four masticatory items (Q1 + Q28 + Q29 + Q32) . The higher the OHIP‐Mas score, the more functional impairment judged by the patient (range 0‐16).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral health‐related quality of life, oral aesthetics and oral function in head and neck cancer patients after oral rehabilitation

Fromm

Gotfredsen

Wessel

et al. 2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This aspect comes from the suggestion that users of dental prostheses have been through bad experiences related to oral health conditions, which may have had physical, social, and psychological impacts, making these individuals more sensitive to the perception of the oral health impacts on their quality of life (Özhayat and Gotfredsen, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the methodologies previously proposed for the OHIP are those that consider the sum of the responses of each item (Özhayat and Gotfredsen, 2013), the mean scores for each subscale (Pires et al, 2006), or even the percentage of reported oral The specific items for complete denture users (17, 18, and 30) were not considered in the analyses. n, sample size; λ, factor weights range (min-max); CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness of fit; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; BIC, Bayes information criterion; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BCC, Browne-Cudeck criterion; AVE, convergent validity; CR, composite reliability; α, internal consistency; r 2 , squared correlation coefficient; OHIP, Oral Health Impact Profile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, some reduced versions, such as the OHIP-14 (Slade, 1997), were developed to address the same concepts as the full version of OHIP but to consume less time. These versions have been adapted and validated for specific clinical conditions, such as temporomandibular disorders (Van der Meulen et al, 2012), prostheses users (Özhayat and Gotfredsen, 2013), and edentulous patients (de Souza et al, 2012), among others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychometric Properties of the Oral Health Impact Profile and New Methodological Approach

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evaluate the validity, reliability, and factorial invariance of the complete Portuguese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and its short version . Methods: A total of 1,162 adults enrolled in the Faculty of Dentistry of Araraquara/UNESP participated in the study; 73.1% were women; and the mean age was 40.7 ± 16.3 yr. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, where χ 2 /df, comparative fit index, goodness of fit index, and root mean square error of approximation were used as indices of goodness of fit. The convergent validity was judged from the average variance extracted and the composite reliability, and the internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach standardized alpha. The stability of the models was evaluated by multigroup analysis in independent samples (test and validation) and between users and nonusers of dental prosthesis. Results: We found best-fitting models for the OHIP-14 and among dental prosthesis users. The convergent validity was below adequate values for the factors "functional limitation" and "physical pain" for the complete version and for the factors "functional limitation" and "psychological discomfort" for the OHIP-14. Values of composite reliability and internal consistency were below adequate in the OHIP-14 for the factors "functional limitation" and "psychological discomfort." We detected strong invariance between test and validation samples of the full version and weak invariance for OHIP-14. The models for users and nonusers of dental prosthesis were not invariant for both versions. Conclusion:The reduced version of the OHIP was parsimonious, reliable, and valid to capture the construct "impact of oral health on quality of life," which was more pronounced in prosthesis users.

show abstract

Impact of various screwed implant prostheses on oral health-related quality of life as measured with the QoLIP–10 and OHIP–14 scales: A cross-sectional study

Preciado

Río

Lynch

et al. 2013

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral health-related quality-of-life in patients to be treated with fixed or removable partial dental prostheses

Abstract: The difference in OHRQoL between participants about to receive RDP and FDP was limited. The most frequently reported problems concerned functional limitations, discomfort and physical disabilities. Social handicap was not frequently reported.

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Oral health‐related quality of life, oral aesthetics and oral function in head and neck cancer patients after oral rehabilitation

Oral health‐related quality of life, oral aesthetics and oral function in head and neck cancer patients after oral rehabilitation

Psychometric Properties of the Oral Health Impact Profile and New Methodological Approach

Impact of various screwed implant prostheses on oral health-related quality of life as measured with the QoLIP–10 and OHIP–14 scales: A cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About