Premium
Development of a specific indicator of the well‐being of wearers of removable dentures
Author(s) -
Montero Javier,
Bravo Manuel,
LópezValverde Antonio
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
community dentistry and oral epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1600-0528
pISSN - 0301-5661
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00620.x
Subject(s) - medicine , dentures , prosthesis , quality of life (healthcare) , dentistry , cronbach's alpha , oral health , impaction , dental prosthesis , orthodontics , nursing , clinical psychology , surgery , psychometrics , implant
Montero J, Bravo M, López‐Valverde A. Development of a specific indicator of the well‐being of wearers of removable dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39: 515–524. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract – Objectives: Bearers of removable prostheses have certain particular characteristics that require the inclusion of items able to detect the specific effect on their oral functions (derived from the presence of such prostheses). We aimed to develop and validate a specific indicator for the assessment of oral health–related quality of life in bearers of dentures. Methods: A panel of experts compiled a questionnaire addressing oral health–related quality of life (11 items) to assess the degree of well‐being afforded by removable dentures. After a pilot trial in patients bearing prostheses ( n = 36), a consecutive sampling of denture wearers ( n = 123) was conducted among patients not requesting odontological treatment and accompanying persons, attending their respective health centres in the City of Granada and its metropolitan area. The subjects were classified as RPP1 (removable partial prosthesis on one of the arches, RPP2 (on both) and complete prosthesis (CP on both arches). Results: The questionnaire was consistent (Cronbach alpha 0.814) and proved to have suitable validity. Factor analysis revealed three factors termed physical, psychological and social well‐being, which coherently supported the interrelationship among the 11 items. The prevalence of impact was significantly higher in the CP individuals (97.1%) and in that of the RPP2 group (92.1%) than in the RPP1 subjects (80.7%). Prosthetic fit, aesthetics and self‐confidence were significantly discrepant among the prosthetic groups, although the total prosthetic quality of life score was not able to differentiate them. The main prosthetic impact in all the prosthesis‐wearing groups was attributed to ‘food impaction’, although all the groups were essentially satisfied with their mouth. Conclusions: The prosthetic quality of life (PQL) questionnaire is a valid and reliable indicator of the specific well‐being of partial or complete denture wearers.