Reflection on patients' experience with orthodontic appliances wear and its impact on oral health related quality of life: observational comparative study.
Malocclusion
Oral health
Orthodontic appliances
Quality of life
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 07 2023
19 07 2023
Historique:
received:
14
04
2023
accepted:
05
07
2023
medline:
21
7
2023
pubmed:
20
7
2023
entrez:
19
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to explore and compare patient's experience with the use of a removable functional appliance or fixed orthodontic appliance and its influence on oral health-related quality of life. This clinical trial included 81 participants having Class II Division 1 and age ranging between 10 and 16 years. The participants were included in any of a three equal groups according to the set inclusion and exclusion criteria; Group 1: patients treated with a Twin-Block functional appliance; Group 2: patients treated with a fixed orthodontic appliance only; and Group 3 (control group): patients not in orthodontic treatment yet. The COHIP SF-19 was used. Patients were given the questionnaire as follows: Group 1: (1) after at least 8 months from starting treatment; (2) after completing phase 1 by 2-3 months without wearing the appliance; Group 2: (1) just before debonding; (2) after finishing the treatment by 2-3 months without any appliances; and Group 3: (1) at the patient's first visit to the orthodontic clinic; (2) after 2-3 months from the first visit to the orthodontic clinic and before starting any treatment. The 81 participants were 31 males and 50 females with median age of 13 years. The total COHIP SF-19 scores at baseline were 57 (49-64), 67 (63-72), and 47 (42-53) for the Twin-Block, the fixed appliance, and the malocclusion groups, respectively. Two-month mean scores adjusted to the baseline scores were 64.82 ± 1.15, 65.65 ± 1.47, and 54.45 ± 1.44 for the Twin-Block, the fixed appliance, and the malocclusion groups, respectively. Both at baseline and two-months (adjusted to the baseline scores), participants in the malocclusion group showed compromised socio-emotional quality of life and reported the poorest total OHRQoL. At the baseline, better socio-emotional and total OHRQoL was reported by the fixed appliance group compared to the Twin-Block group but, after two months both groups gave similar sores. Therefore; patients' perceptions about their experience with the orthodontic appliance might change.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to explore and compare patient's experience with the use of a removable functional appliance or fixed orthodontic appliance and its influence on oral health-related quality of life.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This clinical trial included 81 participants having Class II Division 1 and age ranging between 10 and 16 years. The participants were included in any of a three equal groups according to the set inclusion and exclusion criteria; Group 1: patients treated with a Twin-Block functional appliance; Group 2: patients treated with a fixed orthodontic appliance only; and Group 3 (control group): patients not in orthodontic treatment yet. The COHIP SF-19 was used. Patients were given the questionnaire as follows: Group 1: (1) after at least 8 months from starting treatment; (2) after completing phase 1 by 2-3 months without wearing the appliance; Group 2: (1) just before debonding; (2) after finishing the treatment by 2-3 months without any appliances; and Group 3: (1) at the patient's first visit to the orthodontic clinic; (2) after 2-3 months from the first visit to the orthodontic clinic and before starting any treatment.
RESULTS
The 81 participants were 31 males and 50 females with median age of 13 years. The total COHIP SF-19 scores at baseline were 57 (49-64), 67 (63-72), and 47 (42-53) for the Twin-Block, the fixed appliance, and the malocclusion groups, respectively. Two-month mean scores adjusted to the baseline scores were 64.82 ± 1.15, 65.65 ± 1.47, and 54.45 ± 1.44 for the Twin-Block, the fixed appliance, and the malocclusion groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Both at baseline and two-months (adjusted to the baseline scores), participants in the malocclusion group showed compromised socio-emotional quality of life and reported the poorest total OHRQoL. At the baseline, better socio-emotional and total OHRQoL was reported by the fixed appliance group compared to the Twin-Block group but, after two months both groups gave similar sores. Therefore; patients' perceptions about their experience with the orthodontic appliance might change.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37468940
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03205-6
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03205-6
pmc: PMC10357712
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
502Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Angle Orthod. 2010 Jan;80(1):49-53
pubmed: 19852639
Angle Orthod. 2020 Mar;90(2):202-208
pubmed: 31613144
J Orthod Sci. 2017 Apr-Jun;6(2):65-70
pubmed: 28546959
Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):801-808
pubmed: 28753032
Contemp Clin Dent. 2015 Jul-Sep;6(3):396-400
pubmed: 26321842
Dental Press J Orthod. 2019 May 20;24(2):73-80
pubmed: 31116290
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Nov 30;12:169
pubmed: 25433408
Chin Med J (Engl). 2002 Jul;115(7):1031-4
pubmed: 12150737
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jun;127(6):700-6
pubmed: 15953895
J Orthod Sci. 2012 Oct;1(4):98-102
pubmed: 24987635
J Public Health Dent. 2012 Fall;72(4):302-12
pubmed: 22536873
Qual Life Res. 2009 Nov;18(9):1147-57
pubmed: 19774493
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2018;16(3):211-223
pubmed: 30027162
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):71-81
pubmed: 21357655
Biomed J. 2022 Jun;45(3):549-556
pubmed: 34118465
Angle Orthod. 2015 Nov;85(6):986-91
pubmed: 25531421
Eur J Orthod. 2006 Apr;28(2):103-11
pubmed: 16257989
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jul 11;18(1):224
pubmed: 32653004
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Jan-Feb;36(2):160-165
pubmed: 32063952
J Orthod. 2004 Mar;31(1):20-7; discussion 15
pubmed: 15071148
Niger J Clin Pract. 2019 Jun;22(6):817-823
pubmed: 31187768
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021 Feb 15;31(1):010502
pubmed: 33380887
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Jun 8;43(3):353-359
pubmed: 32613250
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007 Aug;35 Suppl 1:20-31
pubmed: 17615047
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):42-7
pubmed: 20122429
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Dec;34(6):724-30
pubmed: 21750242
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;37(1):1-8
pubmed: 19046331
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Aug 18;22(1):358
pubmed: 35982450
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Sep;124(3):234-43; quiz 339
pubmed: 12970656
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Nov 13;15(1):218
pubmed: 29132377
Med Pharm Rep. 2022 Apr;95(2):191-196
pubmed: 35721032
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jun 23;42(3):223-230
pubmed: 31147683
Dent Traumatol. 2015 Feb;31(1):1-8
pubmed: 25263806
Am J Orthod. 1985 Feb;87(2):110-8
pubmed: 3855604
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Sep;10(5):636-42
pubmed: 24348622
Soz Praventivmed. 2005;50(5):281-91
pubmed: 16300172
Angle Orthod. 2022 Jun 07;:
pubmed: 35666207
Eur J Orthod. 2008 Feb;30(1):40-5
pubmed: 17971352