Premium
GOHAI and OHIP‐EDENT Evaluation in Removable Dental Prostheses Users: Factorial Analysis and Influence of Clinical and Prosthetic Variables
Author(s) -
De Carvalho Bruna Marjorie Dias Frota,
Parente Rayssa Cavalcante,
Franco Jéferson Martins Pereira Lucena,
Silva Paulo Goberlânio de Barros
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.13304
Subject(s) - medicine , quality of life (healthcare) , dentistry , masticatory force , prosthesis , dental prosthesis , rehabilitation , dentures , removable partial denture , oral health , orthodontics , physical therapy , surgery , nursing , implant
Purpose To assess the degree of satisfaction and quality of life of patients with removable prostheses using the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) and Oral Health Impact Profile in Edentulous Adults (OHIP‐EDENT), in addition to evaluating the questionnaires for their validation. Materials and Methods Eighty patients participated in the study after completing prosthetic rehabilitation treatment. Patients were evaluated using the OHIP‐EDENT and GOHAI questionnaires to assess the criteria for quality of life, esthetics, phonetics, masticatory function, stability, comfort, and alteration of taste and pain related to the completed prostheses. The results were subjected to the chi‐squared test, Fisher's exact test, and a multinomial logistic regression model, with a significance level of 5%. Results The most commonly used removable prosthesis was mandibular removable partial denture (RPD) (n = 43, 53.8%), followed by maxillary RPD (n = 42, 52.5%), maxillary complete denture (CD) (n = 33, 41.3%), and mandibular CD (n = 31, 38.8%). Most patients had to have one (n = 29, 36.3%), two (n = 21, 26.3%), or none (n = 18, 23.8%) adjustments in their prostheses. Five (6.3%) patients’ prostheses required three adjustments, and six (7.5%) required four or more adjustments. All reported improvement in esthetics after using the prostheses ( p < 0.05). The validation of the questionnaire proved to be more viable when completed without the presence of specific domains. Conclusion The results of this study indicated that removable prostheses improved the quality of life of rehabilitated patients. The questionnaires used need to be answered and evaluated in their entirety for validation.