Comparison of the discriminative ability of a generic and a condition-specific OHRQoL measure in adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment

Eduardo Bernabé,Cesar M De Oliveira,Aubrey Sheiham

doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-64

Abstract

BackgroundAt present, there is no evidence on whether using condition-specific Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) measures provides more reliable information than generic measures for needs assessment. Therefore, the objective was to assess the discriminative ability of one generic and one condition-specific OHRQoL measure, namely, respectively, the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Condition-Specific form of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (CS-OIDP) attributed to malocclusion, between adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment.Methods200 16–17-year-old adolescents were randomly selected from 957 schoolchildren attending a Sixth Form College in London, United Kingdom. The impact of their oral conditions on quality of life during the last 6 months was assessed using two OHRQoL measures; OHIP-14 and OIDP. Adolescents were also examined for normative orthodontic treatment need using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) and the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI). Discriminative ability was assessed comparing the overall scores and prevalence of oral impacts, calculated using each OHRQoL measure, between adolescents with and without normative need. Using the prevalence of oral impacts allowed adjusting for covariates.ResultsThere were significant differences in overall scores for CS-OIDP attributed to malocclusion between adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment when IOTN or DAI were used to define need (p = 0.029 or 0.011 respectively), and in overall scores for OHIP-14 when DAI, but not IOTN was used to define need (p = 0.029 and 0.080 respectively). For the prevalence of impacts, only the prevalence of CS-OIDP attributed to malocclusion differed significantly between adolescents with and without normative need, even after adjusting for covariates (p = 0.017 and 0.049 using IOTN and DAI to define need).ConclusionCS-OIDP attributed to malocclusion was better able than OHIP-14 to discriminate between adolescents with and without normative needs for orthodontic treatment.

Highlights

At present, there is no evidence on whether using condition-specific Oral HealthRelated Quality of Life (OHRQoL) measures provides more reliable information than generic measures for needs assessment
There were significant differences in the overall scores for CS-OIDP attributed to malocclusion between adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment when Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) or Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) were used to define need (p = 0.029 or 0.011 respectively), and in the overall scores for Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 when DAI, but not IOTN was used to define need (p = 0.029 and 0.080 respectively)
This study evaluated two widely used OHRQoL measures, OHIP-14 and CS-OIDP attributed to malocclusion, in terms of their ability to discriminate adolescents with, from those without normative need for orthodontic treatment

Summary

Introduction

There is no evidence on whether using condition-specific Oral HealthRelated Quality of Life (OHRQoL) measures provides more reliable information than generic measures for needs assessment. The objective was to assess the discriminative ability of one generic and one condition-specific OHRQoL measure, namely, respectively, the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Condition-Specific form of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (CS-OIDP) attributed to malocclusion, between adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment. The Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) is the only OHRQoL measure designed to link specific oral conditions, such as malocclusion, and impacts on quality of life [9,10]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion