Search

Objectives: To investigate whether the location of tooth loss and prosthesis are associated with self‐reported oral health, general health, socioeconomic position and satisfaction with life. Methods: From the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank (CAMB) investigation, 1517 persons had their oral status ranked (full dentition, fixed prosthesis in the masticatory zone, tooth loss in the masticatory zone, fixed prosthesis in the aesthetic zone, removable prosthesis, tooth loss in the aesthetic zone). Self‐reported oral health, general health, socioeconomic position and satisfaction with life were obtained. Information on gender, normative socioeconomic position, frequency of seeing a dentist, acute dental treatment within the last 5 years and general diseases was also recorded. Results: Patients with tooth loss in the aesthetic zone and removable prosthesis showed high odds ratios for reporting poor rather than good oral health compared to patients having a full dentition. Having a removable prosthesis was further associated with rating socioeconomic position as low rather than high (odds ratio = 27.7 [95% CI: 5.07; 151.6]) compared to a full dentition after controlling for normative socioeconomic position and gender. In the bivariate analyses, a tendency towards poorer general health and poorer satisfaction with life was found with worse oral status, meanwhile the multiple regression analyses did not show significant associations between oral status and general health and satisfaction with life. Conclusions: Missing teeth and having prostheses are associated with worse self‐reported oral health compared to having a full dentition. Removable dental prosthesis may be associated with a worse self‐perception of socioeconomic status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Objectives: To quantify the patient‐reported effect of oral rehabilitation and investigate aspects associated with this. Methods: The patient‐reported effect in participants treated with fixed dental prosthesis (FDP; n = 72) or removable dental prosthesis (RDP; n = 58) was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP‐14) and global oral ratings (GOR) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort before and after treatment and global transition judgements (GTJ) of aesthetics, chewing and comfort after treatment. Explanatory variables included gender, age, if a prosthetic replacement was present before treatment, type of prosthetic treatment performed, number of teeth replaced and zone of the teeth replaced. Results: The RDP and FDP treatments both significantly improved the OHIP‐14 score with a moderate to large effect and most participants had good patient‐reported effect. The effect varied depending on the method used. In the bivariate analyses, the number of participants with good effect was higher in the RDP group than the FDP group when using the OHIP‐14 and GOR whereas the effect was higher in the FDP group when using the GTJ. Multiple regression analyses showed that poor chewing ability before treatment was associated with good effect measured by the OHIP‐14 and GOR and that poor effect in chewing ability and RDP treatment was associated with poor effect in comfort measured by GTJ. Functional problems after treatment were associated with no/poor effect. Conclusions: Oral rehabilitation with fixed or removable prostheses in general yields good patient‐reported effect. Masticatory aspects highly influence the patient‐reported effect and treatment with RDP is associated with poor effect in oral comfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate and describe the Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in a socially endangered group of people and to compare the OHRQoL to other patient groups.Material and Methods: About 294 socially endangered persons attending a volunteer clinic in Copenhagen Denmark filled in the OHIP-14 questionnaire. The group was compared in mean score and reported problems to a group of patients with tooth loss and about to have a removable dental prosthesis (RDP), a group with tooth loss about to have a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) and a control group without tooth loss.Results: Significantly higher OHIP-14 score was seen in the socially endangered group (15.5 (SD 12.6)) compared with the control (1.9 (SD 2.7)) and the FDP group (9.4 (SD 8.2)) but not the RDP group (13.1 (SD 10.5)). This difference was not changed after stratifying in age groups. Problems related to psychological disability, social disability, and handicap were more frequent in the social endangered group than for the other groups. The items pain, tense, diet, relax, life, and function stand out as problems in the socially endangered group compared to the other groups.Conclusion: The OHRQoL is highly impaired in the socially endangered persons and at least to the level of persons with great tooth loss about to have an RDP. The problems seem to be more handicapping in the socially endangered compared with other patient groups known to have high impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]