| Summary: | 碩士 === 高雄醫學大學 === 口腔衛生科學研究所碩士在職專班 === 100 === Objective:
The aim of this study was to assess responsiveness of oral- and general-related quality of life (OHRQoL & HRQoL) in prosthetic treatments, and to determine the validity and discriminatory ability of the OHIP short forms, OIDP and WHOQOL-BREF for prosthetic treatments.
Methods:
This longitudinal study collected prosthetic patients of aged 20 years or above at a dental clinic of a regional hospital in Kaohsiung City. There were 116 patients, including 29 fixed partial denture (FPD), 53 removable partial denture (RPD) and 34 complete denture (CD) patients, received questionnaire interviews at baseline and 91 subjects completed follow-up prosthetic treatments and post interviews. The original short-form OHIP-14 by Slade (OHIP-14S), Taiwanese (Chinese) short-form OHIP-14 (OHIP-14T), OIDP and WHOQOL-BREF were used to measure OHRQoL and HRQoL. Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s alpha and the validity of all instruments was assessed by using ANOVA tests to determine the associations between the OHIP-14S, OHIP-14T, OIDP and WHOQOL-BREF scores and patients’ perceived health status. The responsiveness of OHIP-14S, OHIP-14T, OIDP and WHOQOL-BREF were assessed by paired t-tests and effect sizes (ES). The ANCOVA model was used to examine the comparison of prosthetic treatments in responsiveness of OHIP and OIDP while adjusting baseline measures and demographic characteristics.
Results:
The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 of the OHIP-14T was higher than OHIP-14S and OIDP (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.86, 0.80). The OHIP-14T indicated a stronger association between OHRQoL in perceived oral health status (p=0.0031), and perceived general health status (p=0.0384) than other OHRQoL instruments. After FPD, RPD and CD treatments, significant differences between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores were found in OHIP and OIDP. In addition, there were larger improvements of physical pain (ES=1.54, p<.0001) and psychological discomfort (ES=2.02, p<.0001) of OHIP dimensions after prosthetic treatments, but no improvement in any of WHOQOL-BREF dimensions. The improvements of OIDP with FPD (ES=1.26) treatments were more than RPD (ES=1.05) and CD (ES=1.08) treatments. On the other hand, the FPD, the RPD and CD treatment did not reach significant difference (p = 0.5050, 0.5150, 0.3350) on the total score of before and after the health-related quality of life scale, WHOQOL-BREF.
Conclusion:
This study suggested that prosthetic treatments (FPD, RPD and CD treatments) are associated with improvement of OHRQoL; particularly, improved largely in the physical pain and psychological discomfort dimensions, but not in HRQoL. In addition, the validity and discriminatory ability of OHIP-14T were better than OHIP-14S and OIDP for prosthetic treatments.
|
|---|
