Impact of administration mode on Oro‐facial Appearance assessment using the Oro‐facial Esthetic Scale

Neophytou, Sophia; Sierwald, Ira; Michelaki, Ioanna; Reissmann, Daniel R.

doi:10.1111/joor.12715

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…82 However, no significant differences in summary scores between self-administered completion and interviews were observed for OIDP and OES. 80,83 Furthermore, psychometric properties of OHIP and OES did not differ substantially with respect to administration methods. 79,82,83 This indicates all administration methods are a valid approach to assess OHRQoL, but applying different modes of administration within a particular study should be avoided or when performed accompanied by evidence of no influence of the administration method on research question.…”

Section: Methods Of Ohrqol Instrument Administrationmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…While all studies revealed OHIP summary scores were higher for self‐administered questionnaires than for any form of interview, this effect was not statistically significant and not clinically relevant in prosthodontic patients 79 and in primary dental care patients 80,81 but were in patients with chronic periodontitis 82 . However, no significant differences in summary scores between self‐administered completion and interviews were observed for OIDP and OES 80,83 . Furthermore, psychometric properties of OHIP and OES did not differ substantially with respect to administration methods 79,82,83 .…”

Section: How To Administer An Ohrqol Instrument?mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodological considerations when measuring oral health–related quality of life

Reissmann

2020

J of Oral Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dental patient‐reported outcomes (dPROs) and their measures, dPROMs, are fundamental for evidence‐based dentistry. However when selecting, applying and evaluating an instrument with a focus on OHRQoL assessment for adults, several methodological considerations are essential to derive valid and meaningful results. Methods In this review article, criteria for selecting the appropriate OHRQoL instrument, aspects of administering the instrument and how to evaluate resulting scores of single and multiple assessments are presented and critically assessed. Results Oral disease–generic and dimension–generic instruments capturing the entire construct OHRQoL allow for best comparability of findings across different diseases, settings and populations, with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) being the most often used and methodologically best investigated one. It is available in several versions with the 5‐item version being the one with the lowest burden for the patient. Responses are given on a 5‐point ordinal rating scale, the recommended response scale for dPROMs. A 7‐day recall period allows for assessment of short‐term effects. Clinically relevant effects of item or instrument order or administration method on OHIP scores do not seem to be likely. OHIP summary and dimension scores can be compared to norms from general population or different patient populations. Change scores should be set into context with the minimal important difference of the instrument. Conclusion OHIP‐5 has greatest potential to be used across all settings for assessment and evaluation of OHRQoL in adults. It allows a comprehensive characterising of patients suffering from oral diseases and of this impact using OHRQoL dimensions.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Ohrqol Instrument Administrationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: How To Administer An Ohrqol Instrument?mentioning

confidence: 91%

Methodological considerations when measuring oral health–related quality of life

Reissmann

2020

J of Oral Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current study, the questionnaires were distributed either in hard or electronic form. Neophytou et al [33] reported no impact of administration mode on the assessment of orofacial appearance using the OES. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239232.t004 Table 5.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of orofacial appearance among laypersons with diverse social and demographic status

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The perception of dentofacial esthetics differs considerably between patients and dentists. Patient's expectations regarding his/her esthetics are important and should be assessed ahead of any planning of esthetic treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in perception of orofacial appearance by laypersons with different social and demographic status. Materials and methods Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 400 subjects. The questionnaire comprised three parts; the first part addressed the demographic variables. The second part queried about dental prosthesis, orthognathic or plastic surgery, and/or ongoing or previous orthodontic treatment. The third part included the Arabic version of the-8-item Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-Ar) whose responses were scored in the 5-point Likert scale. These scores were compared by different grouping factors (age, gender, marital status, and education) using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Willis tests with 95% confidence interval (α > 0.05). Results A total of 268 questionnaires were eligible for analysis, representing 67% response rate. The satisfaction with facial profile appearance was the highest (4.0±1.1) followed by facial appearance (3.9±1.1), while the color of teeth was the least satisfying item (3.1±1.3). No significant differences were found between age groups for the mean summary score as well as for each item independently. No significant difference was found between both sexes except for the last item "overall impression". Married subjects rated one item (alignment of teeth)

show abstract

Dental Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Are Essential for Evidence-Based Prosthetic Dentistry

Reißmann

2019

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of administration mode on Oro‐facial Appearance assessment using the Oro‐facial Esthetic Scale

Abstract: The administration mode has no significant impact on Oro-facial Appearance assessment when using the OES.

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Methodological considerations when measuring oral health–related quality of life

Methodological considerations when measuring oral health–related quality of life

Perception of orofacial appearance among laypersons with diverse social and demographic status

Dental Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Are Essential for Evidence-Based Prosthetic Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About