4.1 Article

A population-based study on the impact of orofacial dysfunction on oral health-related quality of life among Brazilian schoolchildren

Journal

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 173-178

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2016.1275038

Keywords

Child; Nordic orofacial test screening; orofacial dysfunction; oral health-related quality of life; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of orofacial dysfunction on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among Brazilian schoolchildren.Material and methods: A population-based study was conducted with 531 children aged eight to 10 years at schools in the city of Campo Magro, Brazil. The Brazilian version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(8-10)) was the outcome variable used to measure the impact on OHRQoL. The main independent variable was orofacial function, which was diagnosed using the Nordic Orofacial Test-Screening (NOT-S). Descriptive, bivariate and multiple Poisson regression analyses were performed using a multilevel approach, with the significance level set to 5%.Results: The mean (SD) total CPQ(8-10) score was 13.95 +/- 0.5. The multilevel Poisson regression model revealed that the mean CPQ8-10 score was higher among girls (RR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.17-1.63; p<0.001) than boys and that children from families with a higher income had lower CPQ(8-10) scores (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51-0.88; p=0.004) than those from families with a lower income. Children who sought dental care due to pain or factors other than prevention (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.18-1.68), those with orofacial dysfunction (RR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.30-2.02) and those with a history of traumatic dental injury (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.15-1.69) also experienced a greater impact on OHRQoL.Conclusions: Schoolchildren with orofacial dysfunction experience a greater negative impact on OHRQoL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available