De-Hua Zheng and Xu-Xia Wang contributed equally to this work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper. JZ provided the idea for the project and revised the manuscript. DZ and XW reviewed the paper and contributed to the writing. CX, CK and YS recruited the participants, collected the data, and assisted the clinical trial. SZ performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The objectives of this study were to investigated changes in OHRQoL among patients with different classifications of malocclusion during comprehensive orthodontic treatment.
Clinical data were collected from 81 patients (aged 15 to 24) who had undergone comprehensive orthodontic treatment. Participants were classified 3 groups: Class I (n = 35), II (n = 32) and III (n = 14) by Angle classification. OHRQoL was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). All subjects were examined and interviewed at baseline (T0), after alignment and leveling (T1), after correction of molar relationship and space closure (T2), after finishing (T3). Friedman 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the relative changes of OHRQoL among the different time points. A Bonferroni correction with P < 0.005 was used to declare significance.
Significant reductions were observed in all seven OHIP-14 domains of three groups except for social disability (P > 0.005) in class I and class II, Handicap in class II and class III (P > 0.005). Class I patients showed significant changes for psychological disability and psychological discomfort domain at T1, functional limitation, physical pain at T2. Class III patients showed a significant benefit in all domains except physical pain and functional limitation. Class II patients showed significant changes in the physical pain, functional disability, and physical disability domains at T1.
The impact of comprehensive orthodontic treatment on patients’ OHRQoL do not follow the same pattern among patients with different malocclusion. Class II patients benefits the most from the stage of space closure, while class I patients benefits the first stage (alignment and leveling) of treatment in psychological disability and psychological discomfort domains.
O’Brien K, Kay L, Fox D, Mandall N. Assessing oral health outcomes for orthodontics—measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health. 1998;15:22–6. PubMed
Nagarajappa R, Batra M, Sanadhya S, Daryani H, Ramesh G. Relationship between oral clinical conditions and daily performances among young adults in India – a cross sectional study. J Epidemiol Global Health. 2015; Article in press.
Soe KK, Gelbier S, Robinson PG. Reliability and validity of two oral health related quality of life measures in Myanmar adolescents. Community Dent Health. 2004;21:306–11. PubMed
Branda˜o Magalha˜es I. The influence of malocclusion on masticatory performance. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:981–7. CrossRef
Fontijn-Tekamp FA, van der Bilt A, Abbink JH, Bosman F. Swallowing threshold and masticatory performance in dentate adults. Physiol Behav. 2004;432:431–6. CrossRef
Soh CL, Narayanan V. Quality of life assessment in patients with dentofacial deformity undergoing orthodontic surgery- a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;42:974–80. CrossRef
Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an orthodontic treatment priority index. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:309–20. PubMed
- Assessing changes in quality of life using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) in patients with different classifications of malocclusion during comprehensive orthodontic treatment
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II