Validation of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in the general population

John, Mike T.; Larsson, Pernilla; Nilner, Krister; Bandyopadhyay, Dipankar; List, Thomas

doi:10.1186/1477-7525-10-135

Cited by 29 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This does not mean that our model could not be extended. For example, previous findings using the Orofacial Aesthetics Scale, which exclusively measures Orofacial Appearance (17, 18), provided preliminary evidence that appearance may have an intra- and an extra-oral component (19). The dimension Oral Function may also have sub-components.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile

John

Feuerstahler

Waller

et al. 2014

J of Oral Rehabilitation

144

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous exploratory analyses suggest that the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) consists of four correlated dimensions and that individual differences in OHIP total scores reflect an underlying higher-order factor. The aim of this report is to corroborate these findings in the Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (DOQ) Project, an international study of general population subjects and prosthodontics patients. Using the project's Validation Sample (N=5,022), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses in a sample of 4,993 subjects with sufficiently complete data. In particular, we compared the psychometric performance of three models: a unidimensional model, a four-factor model, and a bifactor model that included one general factor and four group factors. Using model fit criteria and factor interpretability as guides, the four-factor model was deemed best in terms of strong item loadings, model fit (RMSEA=0.05, CFI=0.99), and interpretability. These results corroborate our previous findings that four highly correlated factors—which we have named Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact —can be reliably extracted from the OHIP item pool. However, the good fit of the unidimensional model and the high inter-factor correlations in the four-factor solution suggest that OHRQoL can also be sufficiently described with one score.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile

John

Feuerstahler

Waller

et al. 2014

J of Oral Rehabilitation

144

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As, to the best of our knowledge to date, a validated, implant‐specific, patient‐reported outcome measure focused on esthetic evaluation is not available, other patient‐reported outcome measures developed in different specialties in dentistry could be adapted and validated . For example, the Oral Health Impact Profile‐Esthetic , the Orofacial Esthetic Scale and the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Esthetics questionnaire are tools developed for other dental branches and are focused on the patient's perception of their esthetic outcome. These instruments could be used as a framework to develop an implant condition‐specific patient‐reported outcome measure for the assessment of esthetic satisfaction .…”

Section: Subjective Assessment Of Esthetics: Patient‐reported Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Esthetic evaluation and patient‐centered outcomes in single‐tooth implant rehabilitation in the esthetic area

Stefanini¹,

Felice²,

Mazzotti³

et al. 2018

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criteria for successful implants, in the rehabilitation of a single missing tooth in the esthetic area, should be determined by composite outcomes, including functional and esthetic aspects of soft tissues and the reconstruction, as well as patient-reported outcomes. This paper focuses on current methods in esthetic assessment and patient-centered/reported outcomes in single-tooth implant rehabilitation in the esthetic area. The relationship between subjective, patient-based esthetic evaluations and objective, professional-based esthetic evaluations is reviewed. In spite of increasing interest in the assessment of 'success' in implant dentistry, it is not yet possible to provide evidence-based conclusions because of the lack of consensus on a universal implant-supported crown esthetic index. There is also a need to standardize reporting of patient-centered outcomes in partially edentulous patients treated with implants.

show abstract

“…John et al . , 2012 showed in a previous study sufficient reliability and validity of OES scores in the Swedish general population and suggested that the OES instrument could be extended to the general population, an important target population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Normative values for the oro‐facial Esthetic Scale in Sweden

Larsson

John

Nilner

et al. 2013

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports the findings and challenges of the assessment of oro-facial aesthetics in the Swedish general population and the development of normative values for the self-reporting Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES). In a Swedish national sample of 1406 adult subjects (response rate: 47%), OES decile norms were established. The influence of sociodemographics (gender, age, and education), oral health status and general health status on OES scores was analysed. Mean ± standard deviation of OES scores was 50.3 ± 15.6 units (0, worst score; 70, best score); <1% of the subjects had the minimum score of 0, and 11% had the maximum score of 70 OES units. Orofacial Esthetic Scale score differences were (i) substantial (>5 OES units) for subjects with excellent/very good versus good to poor oral or general health status; ii) small (2 units), but statistically significant for gender (P = 0.01) and two age groups (P = 0.02), and (iii) absent for subjects with college versus no college education (P = 0.31) or with and without dentures (P = 0.90). To estimate normative values for a self-reporting health status, instrument is considered an important step in standardisation, and the developed norms provide a frame of reference in the general population to interpret the Orofacial Esthetic Scale scores.

show abstract

Validation of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in the general population

Cited by 29 publications

References 17 publications

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile

Esthetic evaluation and patient‐centered outcomes in single‐tooth implant rehabilitation in the esthetic area

Normative values for the oro‐facial Esthetic Scale in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About