We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 47 (2016), No. 9     22. Sep. 2016
Quintessence Int 47 (2016), No. 9  (22.09.2016)

Page 749-757, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a36384, PubMed:27341467

Are there differences in the changes in oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) depending on the type (rigidity) of prosthetic treatment?
Bassetti, Renzo Giulio / Mericske-Stern, Regina / Enkling, Norbert
Objective: This prospective pilot study investigated differences in changes in oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) depending on the prosthetic treatment type (rigidity).
Method and Materials: Sixty participants seeking prosthetic treatment were included. The following data were collected before (T1) and 4 weeks after completion of prosthetic treatment (T2): OHRQoL (OHIP-G14) and dental status, categorized in terms of rigidity of the denture as fixed dental prosthesis (FDP, maximal rigidity), removable partial denture prosthesis (RPD, medium rigidity), or complete dentures (CDs, minimal rigidity). After prosthetic treatment, there were three groups of 20 participants: group 1, change in dental status to less rigid; group 2, equally rigid; group 3, more rigid restorations. Data were evaluated using nonparametric statistical test methods and power analysis. The minimally important difference (MID) of two OHIP-G14 units was determined to be clinically relevant.
Results: At T1, 20 participants had FDP, 18 RPD, and 22 CD; at T2, 10 had FDP, 37 RPD, and 13 CD. Overall, average OHIP-G14 values improved clinically relevantly and statistically significantly (P < .001) with treatment. OHRQoL improved more in group 3, with a median of 8 (IQR 14.75; P = .002), than in group 2, with 2.5 (IQR 9.5; P = .033), or group 1, with 4.5 (IQR 16.5; P = .116). Applying MID, all groups improved clinically significantly. Compared to groups 1 and 2, group 3 improved clinically more significantly.
Conclusion: OHRQoL improved with prosthetic treatment. A patient-customized treatment regime seems as important as prosthesis type (rigidity).

Keywords: OHIP-G14, oral-health-related quality of life, prosthetic restoration, treatment effect