To identify the existing OHRQoL instruments for adults, describe their scope (generic or specific), theoretical background, validation type, and cross-cultural adaptation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted and articles presenting validation of OHRQoL instruments in adults were included. Data were collected about the validation type: external validation (correlations/associations); or internal validation (Factor Analysis/Principal Components Analysis, Item Response Theory); and cross-cultural adaptation. Results: Of 3730 references identified, 326 were included reporting 392 studies. Forty-two original instruments were found among 74 different versions, 39 generic and 35 condition-specific. Locker's theoretical framework was the predominant model. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) presented 20 versions,with OHIP-14 being the most frequent (26.8%), followed by Geriatric Oral Assessment Index (GOHAI) (14.0%), OHIP-49 (11.7%) and Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) (9.7%). Most studies focused on external validation (65.3%), while internal validation was reported in 24.8% (n=26) of OHIP-14 studies, 50.9% (n=28) of GOHAI, and 21.1% (n=8) of OIDP studies. Most internal validation studies were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=33), and cross-cultural adaptation mostly in non-English-speaking European countries (n=40). Conclusions: Many generic and condition-specific instruments were found, but few have gone through a rigorous internal validation process, neither have undergone cross-cultural adaptation, making it difficult for researchers to choose based on psychometric properties. OHIP-14, OIDP and GOHAI seem to be the most widely validated instruments. Equalising measurement properties for comparability is challenging due to theoretical heterogeneity. Future studies should assess psychometric properties, explore the factorial structure, and work towards a consensus on critical issues.

Objetivo: Identificar los instrumentos existentes de calidad de vida asociados a la salud oral (OHRQoL) para adultos, describir alcance (genéricos o específicos), marco teórico, tipo de validación, y adaptación transcultural. Método: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de trabajos presentando validación de instrumentos de OHRQoL en adultos. Se recolectaron datos sobre tipo de validación: externa (correlaciones/ asociaciones); o interna (Análisis Factorial/Análisis de Componentes Principales, Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem); y adaptación transcultural. Resultados: De 3730 referencias identificadas, se incluyeron 326 que reportaron 392 estudios. Se encontraron 42 instrumentos originales entre 74 versiones diferentes, 40 genéricos y 34 de condición específica. El marco teórico de Locker fue el modelo predominante. El Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) presentó 20 versiones, siendo OHIP-14 la más frecuente (26,8%), seguida por Geriatric Oral Assessment Index (GOHAI) (14,0%), OHIP-49 (11,7%) y Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) (9,7%). La mayoría de los estudios se centraron en validaciones externas (65,3%), mientras que se reportó validación interna en el 24,8% (n=26) de los estudios de OHIP-14, el 50,9% (n=28) de GOHAI, y el 21,1% (n=8) de OIDP. La mayoría de los estudios de validación interna se realizaron en países de habla inglesa (n=33), y la adaptación transcultural se llevó a cabo principalmente en países europeos de habla no-inglesa (n=40). Conclusiones: Se encontraron muchos instrumentos genéricos y de condición específica, pero pocos han pasado por un riguroso proceso de validación interna o se han sometido a una adaptación transcultural. Esto dificulta la elección del instrumento adecuado a las necesidades en función de sus propiedades psicométricas. OHIP-14, OIDP y GOHAI parecen ser los instrumentos más validados. Igualar propiedades de medición para la comparabilidad entre instrumentos es un desafío, debido a la heterogeneidad teórica existente. Futuros estudios deberían evaluar las propiedades psicométricas, explorar la estructura factorial, y trabajar hacia un consenso sobre cuestiones críticas.

ObjectivesTo investigate the association between different types of dental prostheses (and residual dentition) and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL).MethodsA population‐based study with a representative sample of adults and older adults in Uruguay (2010‐2011). The dependent variable was the score on the oral impact on daily performance (OIDP), and the main predictor was the pattern of tooth loss and prosthesis use. Covariates included sex, age, socioeconomic status, education, missing teeth, pain and decayed teeth. Negative binomial regression was used.ResultsThe sample comprised 762 participants. Those participants not wearing a prosthesis and with extensive tooth loss had a mean OIDP of 3.1 (95% CI = 1.6‐6.2), while those wearing removable partial dentures (RPD) and having <12 missing teeth had a mean OIDP of 3.6 (95% CI = 1.3‐10.0). Participants with a free‐end saddle had the highest mean OIDP, at 4.9 (95% CI = 2.0‐12.1). For participants with ≤12 missing teeth, any additional missing tooth was associated with an 11% higher OIDP score. Participants who wore RDPs reported fewer impacts on OHRQoL if they had extensive tooth loss or anterior tooth loss than those with a free‐end saddle, or who had lost fewer teeth.ConclusionsThe use of RPDs is associated with better OHRQoL. These findings may be valuable in clinical practice and prosthetic planning.