Discriminative ability of the generic and condition specific Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP) among adolescents with and without hypodontia

Abstract

BackgroundThe aims of this study were to (1) investigate to what extent the generic and condition specific (CS) forms of the oral impact of daily performance (OIDP) inventory discriminate between a group of patients with hypodontia and a group of patients having malocclusion, (2) assess the association of the generic and CS OIDP with severity and localisation of hypodontia, whilst adjusting for patients’ age and sex.MethodsA total of 163 patients aged 10–17 years were included in a cross-sectional study. Two groups were investigated: 62 patients with non-syndromic hypodontia and 101 non-hypodontia patients. Both groups had a malocclusion of similar treatment need. All patients underwent a clinical and radiographic examination and completed a Norwegian version of the generic and the CS OIDP inventory. CS scores were established for impacts attributed to hypodontia.ResultsThe mean number of missing teeth in the hypodontia group was 6.2. The prevalence of generic and CS oral impacts in the hypodontia group were 64% and 30%, and the corresponding rates in the non-hypodontia group were 62% and 10%. The generic OIDP did not discriminate between the two groups with respect to overall scores. The CS OIDP discriminated strongly between patients with and without hypodontia regarding problems with emotional status, showing teeth, social contact, speaking and carrying out work. Compared to the non-hypodontia group, patients with hypodontia, with severe hypodontia (≥ 6 missing teeth) and upper anterior hypodontia were respectively 3.4, 2.5 and 7.0 times more likely to report any oral impact attributed to small teeth, gaps between teeth and missing teeth.ConclusionsHypodontia and malocclusion patients report a considerable burden of oral impacts. The CS-OIDP measure discriminated most effectively between patients with and without hypodontia and was related to severity and upper anterior localisation of hypodontia.

Impact of dentine hypersensitivity on oral health‐related quality of life in individuals receiving supportive periodontal care

“…Condition-specific OHR-QoL measures have narrower focuses which increase acceptability by including only important dimensions. A focussed instrument may provide more insights into the consequences of specific oral conditions rather than evaluating overall quality of life in relation to general oral health (Bernabe et al 2009a, Hvaring et al 2014. Though a Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire has been developed (Boiko et al 2010) and translated into the Chinese language (He et al 2012), it was not available at the start of this study and has not been as widely used as the CS-OIDP.…”

“…, Hvaring et al. ). Though a Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire has been developed (Boiko et al.…”

Assessment of oral health‐related quality of life in adolescents, young adults, and adults with dental agenesis: A comparative study

“…Despite the low OHRQoL, the key result in the present study was that, DA negatively impacts OHRQoL in adolescents/young adults and adults (volunteers, from 14 to 55 years of age). Regarding the literature, five articles investigated this theme in children and adolescents (from 11 to 17 years of age) and two articles in adolescents, young adults, and adults (from 16 to 45 years), as in our study. No article evaluated the impact of DA on OHRQoL using OHIP‐14, as in our study.…”

“…According to Locker et al, agenesis needs attention, and its impact on the well‐being and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in individuals should be assessed. A few studies have investigated the impact of dental anomalies on OHRQoL …”

Clinical and subjective evaluation of implants in patients with hypodontia: a two‐year observation study

“…This is mainly due to the negative impact on appearance of gaps and possibly moderated by tooth size (Hvaring et al. ). The pre‐treatment OHIP scores were very similar in the present study to those we have previously reported, so we have no reason to suspect any difference with the present cohort.…”