Impact of dental prosthetic treatment and patients' expectations on the seven domains and four-dimensional scale of the Oral Health Impact Profile.

BACKGROUND: Recently, recommendations were given for a new scoring of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). The original seven domain structure should be replaced by a four-dimensional scale. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of dental prosthetic treatment on the seven domains and the four-dimensional scale of the OHIP-G49/53 questionnaire. METHODS: Seventy four patients were grouped according their pre- and post-treatment situation and the type of treatment they received. Patients completed the OHIP-G49/53 questionnaire before prosthetic treatment (T0), and at 1 week (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3) after treatment. Treatment effects on the seven domains and the four dimensions of the OHIP scale were analysed, and the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was measured. Patients' expectations of their prosthetic treatment were also evaluated. Data were analysed using two-way Mixed ANOVA, regression analysis, and Cronbach's alpha test with a level of significance of α ≤ .017. RESULTS: OHRQoL significantly improved following prosthetic treatment compared with baseline. The largest improvement was found between T0 and T1 evaluations (all p ≤ .001). Unlike the seven-domain scale, the four OHIP dimensions demonstrated further significant improvements across the T1/T2/T3 evaluations (all p ≤ .017). Different pre-treatment findings had different treatment effects on the four OHIP dimensions and seven OHIP domains. Patients' expectations were mainly fulfilled. CONCLUSION: Compared with the seven-domain scale, the four dimensions showed significant follow-up changes, suggesting the four dimensions are suitable for evaluating treatment effects up to 6 months. Clinically meaningful effects of dental prosthetic treatment can be sensitively measured using the four-dimensional OHIP scale.

Prosthetic treatment in the adult French population: Prevalence and relation with demographic, socioeconomic and medical characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of dental prosthetic treatment and to investigate the demographic, social, economic and medical factors associated with the use of fixed and removable dentures in a representative sample of adults living in France. METHODS: The data were obtained from the 2002-2003 Decennial Health Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the population living in France, which included 29,679 adults. Information was collected by interview. The variables collected were fixed denture, removable denture, age, gender, number of children, area of residence, nationality, educational attainment, family social status, employment status, annual household income per capita, supplementary insurance, chronic disease, eyesight problems/glasses, hearing problems/hearing aids. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to study the relationship between prosthetic treatment and demographic, socioeconomic and medical characteristics unadjusted, adjusted for age and adjusted for all the characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of prosthetic treatment was 34.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): [34.1; 35.2]) for fixed prosthetic dentures and 13.8% (95% CI: [13.4; 14.2]) for removable prosthetic dentures. We showed a gradient between educational attainment and removable dentures; the odds ratio adjusted for all the variables (aOR) associated with no or primary education compared to post-secondary education was 2.56; 95% CI: [2.09; 3.13]. When annual household income per capita was low, subjects were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.68; 95% CI: [0.62; 0.75]) than those with high annual household income per capita. Individuals without insurance less often reported fixed dentures than those with private insurance. Those reporting chronic disease were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.87; 95% CI: [0.79; 0.95]) but more likely to report removable dentures (aOR=1.29; 95% CI: [1.17; 1.43]) than those without chronic disease. CONCLUSION: This study reveals social, economic and medical inequalities in fixed and removable prosthetic treatment among adults in France.

Factors affecting patients decision-making for dental prosthetic treatment / 대한치과보철학회지

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Factors affecting patients' decision-making for dental prosthetic treatment should be examined in terms of understanding improving patients' oral health. PURPOSE: The main purpose of this dissertation was to investigate patients' dental prosthetic treatment and factors affecting patients' decision-making for dental prosthesis treatment in Deagu and Gyungbook areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was based on the preliminary survey of dental patients conducted from July 1 to August 31 in 2006. A total of 700 questionnaires had been distributed and 640 were collected. 629 questionnaires were used for the statistical analysis. Descriptive and inferential statistics, such as frequencies, cross tabulation analysis, correlation analysis, logistic regression analysis, and multiple regression analysis were introduced. In the multiple regression analysis and logistic regression analysis, twenty-two independent variables were employed to explore the factors which have impacts on decision-making and satisfaction. RESULTS: The results of this dissertation are as follows: Logistic regression analysis turned out that monthly income, age, degree of expectation, marital status, and employer-insured policy of national insurance statistically increased the odds of decision-making of dental prosthesis treatment. But educational attainment decreased the odds ratio of the decision-making of dental prosthesis treatment. However, the rest independent variables do not have statistically significant impacts on the decision-making of dental prosthesis treatment CONCLUSION: Among independent variables, marital status had the most significant influence on the decision making of dental prosthesis treatment. Finally, suggestions for the future study and policy implications to improve satisfaction of the patients' dental prosthetic treatment were discussed.