Patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation

Abstract

Summary Objectives To quantify the patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation and investigate aspects associated with this. Methods The patient‐reported effect in participants treated with fixed dental prosthesis (FDP; n = 72) or removable dental prosthesis (RDP; n = 58) was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP‐14) and global oral ratings (GOR) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort before and after treatment and global transition judgements (GTJ) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort after treatment. Explanatory variables included gender, age, if a prosthetic replacement was present before treatment, type of prosthetic treatment performed, number of teeth replaced and zone of the teeth replaced. Results The RDP and FDP treatments both significantly improved the OHIP‐14 score with a moderate to large effect and most participants had good patient‐reported effect. The effect varied depending on the method used. In the bivariate analyses, the number of participants with good effect was higher in the RDP group than the FDP group when using the OHIP‐14 and GOR whereas the effect was higher in the FDP group when using the GTJ. Multiple regression analyses showed that poor chewing ability before treatment was associated with good effect measured by the OHIP‐14 and GOR and that poor effect in chewing ability and RDP treatment was associated with poor effect in comfort measured by GTJ. Functional problems after treatment were associated with no/poor effect. Conclusions Oral rehabilitation with fixed or removable prostheses in general yields good patient‐reported effect. Masticatory aspects highly influence the patient‐reported effect and treatment with RDP is associated with poor effect in oral comfort.

Oral health-related impact profile of patients treated with fixed, removable, and telescopic dental prostheses in student courses—a prospective bicenter clinical trial

“…In contrast, the improvement of the OHRQoL with new removable dental prostheses in patients who had no prosthetic restoration before or new removable dental prostheses that probably have a better fit seem obvious. As in the present study, the prosthetic treatment with fixed restorations showed an improvement in OHRQoL in the scientific literature and data from other studies analyzing single-tooth restorations or multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses [19][20][21].…”

Patient‐reported effect in patients receiving implant or tooth‐supported fixed prosthesis

“…The OHIP was further originally developed in patients with great tooth loss and removable prosthesis and thus might not be sensitive enough to capture the impairment of small tooth loss and subsequent effect of their replacement, independent of the length of the questionnaire. Using additional methods to capture the patient‐reported effect have also shown to yield different outcomes of prosthetic treatments . Also, we did not take response shift into account in our study.…”

A Danish version of the oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14): translation and cross-cultural adaptation

“…Several studies used OHIP-14 in Denmark. The majority [ 22 – 24 ] used the original English OHIP-14, whereas one study [ 25 ] reported using a translated Danish version (with no reference provided) and another study [ 26 ] reported the translation of the OHIP-49 into Danish, but without following the guidelines for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires [ 27 ]. In the literature, there is neither a published nor a validated Danish version.…”