4.1 Article

An assessment of sensitivity to change of the Oral Health Impact Profile in a clinical trial

Journal

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 175-182

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290303.x

Keywords

implants; quality of life; health status measures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patient-based assessment of oral health outcomes is of growing interest. Measurement of change following clinical intervention is a key property of a health status measure. To date, most of the research on oral health status measurement has focused on construct and discriminant validity of health status measures. Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of an oral - specific health status measure, the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Methods: Study subjects were in three groups, namely, edentulous/edentate subjects who requested and received complete implant stabilised oral prostheses (IG, n=26), edentulous/edentate subjects who requested implants but received conventional dentures (CDG1, n=22), and edentulous subjects who had new conventional complete dentures (CDG2, n=35). Data were collected pre- and post-operatively using the OHIP and a validated denture satisfaction questionnaire. Results: All subjects reported similar low levels of denture satisfaction pre-operatively. Denture problems had a more significant impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQL) for implant seekers (IG and CDG1 subjects) than subjects seeking conventional dentures (CDG2). Following treatment, significant improvement in satisfaction with oral prostheses and OHRQL was reported by IG and CDG2 subjects; the level of improvement was more moderate for CDG1 subjects. OHIP change scores were correlated with denture satisfaction change scores. Conclusions: It was concluded that sensitivity to change of the OHIP was good. This property was not improved by using statement weights.

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