No abstract

No abstract

Improvement of patients’ oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is the main goal of oral health care professionals. However, OHRQoL is not a homogenous construct and how to assess it is challenging because of the large number of currently available instruments. Investigating available instruments and what they have in common would be necessary for consolidation and standardization of these instruments into a smaller set of tools. If the OHRQoL dimensions including Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the fundamental building blocks of the dental patient’s oral health experience, then these dimensions should be measured by generic multi-item dPROMs. In this study, a panel of 11 international dentists use the Delphi consensus process to determine how well 20 of these instruments measured the four OHRQoL dimensions. All 20 dPROMs questionnaires assessed at least one OHRQoL dimension while all four OHRQoL dimensions were measured by at least one dPROM instrument, i.e., the four OHRQoL dimensions were essential components of the patient’s oral health experience. This shows that the currently available generic multi-item dPROMs have a lot in common, in that they share Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact as targeted dimensions. Based on these commonalities, it is plausible and desirable to move towards a single four-dimensional metric to assess oral health impact in all clinical, community-based, and research settings. This step is necessary to advance evidence-based dentistry and value-based oral health care.

BackgroundThis study tests the effects of scaling and root planing (SRP) versus SRP plus minocycline hydrochloride microspheres (SRP+MM) on 11 periodontal pathogens and clinical outcomes in Stage II‐IV Grade B periodontitis participants.MethodsSeventy participants were randomized to receive SRP (n = 35) or SRP+MM (n = 35). Saliva and clinical outcomes were collected for both groups at baseline before SRP, 1‐month reevaluation, and at 3‐ and 6‐month periodontal recall. MM were delivered to pockets ≥5 mm immediately after SRP and immediately after the 3‐month periodontal maintenance in the SRP+MM group. A proprietary saliva test* was utilized to quantitate 11 putative periodontal pathogens. Microorganisms and clinical outcomes were compared between groups using generalized linear mixed‐effects models with fixed effects and random effects terms. Mean changes from baseline were compared between groups via group‐by‐visit interaction tests.ResultsSignificant reduction in Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Parvimonas micra, and Eikenella corrodens were identified at the 1‐month reevaluation after SRP+MM. Six months after SRP with a re‐application of MM 3 months after SRP, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens were significantly reduced. SRP+MM participants had significant clinical outcome reductions in pockets ≥5 mm at the reevaluation, 3‐ and 6‐month periodontal maintenance, and clinical attachment loss gains at the 6‐month periodontal maintenance.ConclusionMM delivered immediately after SRP and reapplication at 3 months appeared to contribute to improved clinical outcomes and sustained decreased numbers of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens at 6 months.

Aim This study aimed to investigate if in the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP): (i) more missing data occurred when participants answered more questions, (ii) more missing data occurred in a particular item or set of related items, and (iii) item missingness was associated with the demographic characteristics and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) impairment level. Methods We used OHIP data from the Dimensions of OHRQoL (DOQ) project, which consolidated data from 35 individual studies. Among these studies, we analyzed OHIP data from 19 studies (4,847 surveyed individuals, of which 3,481 were completed under supervision and 1,366 were completed unsupervised) that contained some missing information. We computed descriptive statistics to investigate the OHIP missingness. We also used logistic regression analyses, with missing information as the dependent variable, and number of questions filled in (OHIP item rank) as the independent variable for samples with and without supervision. To investigate whether missing data occurs more in a particular item or set of related items we fitted regression models with individual OHIP items and the OHRQoL dimensions as indicator variables. We also investigated age, gender, and OHRQoL level as predictor variables for missing OHIP items. Results We found very low levels of missingness across individual OHIP items and set of related items, and there was no particular item or set of related items that was associated with more missing data. Also, more missing data did not depend on whether the participants answered more questions. In studies without supervision, older persons and females were 5.47 and 2.66 times more likely to have missing items than younger persons and females. However, in studies with supervision, older persons, and participants with more OHRQoL impairment were 1.70 and 2.65 times more likely to have missing items. Conclusion The study participants from general and dental patient populations did not find OHIP-49 burdensome. OHIP item missingness did not depend on a particular OHIP item or set of related items, or if the study participants responded to a greater number of OHIP items. We did not find a consistent pattern of the influence of sociodemographic and OHRQoL magnitude information on OHIP missingness. The amount of missing OHIP information was low making any potential influence likely small in magnitude.