SELF-PERCEIVED ESTHETICS, CHEWING FUNCTION AND ORAL HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH NEW REMOVABLE DENTURES
Orofacial aesthetics scale( OES)
How do you assess appearence of......... during the last 7 days
Oral Health Impact Profile( OHIP-14)
Have you had( problems or feelings that)..... because of problems with teeth, mouth, dentures? during the last 7 days
Chewing Function Questionnaire( CFQ)
Have you had any difficulty chewing foods such as.....( or similar)? during the last 7 days
1. The lower third of your face 1. Pronouncing words 1. Apple, pear, raw carrots
2. Your profile appearance of the lower third of your face |
2. Sense of taste worsened |
2. Bacon, firm meat |
3. Your mouth( smile, lips, visible teeth) |
3. Painful aching( mouth, teeth) |
3. Biscuits, crackers |
4. Your dental arches |
4. Uncomfortable to eat any foods |
4. Fresh bread, doughnut |
5. Assess shape of your teeth |
5. Been self-conscious |
5. Nuts, pecan, almonds, peanuts, macadamia |
6. Assess the color of your teeth |
6. Felt tense |
6. Lettuce, raw cabbage |
7. Your gums or artificial gums |
7. Diet been unsatisfactory |
7. Biting different foods, incision |
8. Asssess the overall appearance of your lower third of the face, mouth and teeth |
8. Interrupt meals |
8. Chewing gum |
|
9. Difficult to relax |
9. Have you felt insecure when chewing |
|
10. Feel a bit embarrassed |
10. Have you noticed food catching on your teeth or tooth replacement |
|
11. Irritable with people 12. Difficulty doing usual jobs 13. Life in general less satisfying 14. Totally unable to function |
|
Scores 1-5; Summary score 8-40 Scores 0 – 4; Summary score 0 – 56 Scores 0 – 4; Summary score 0 – 40
Figure 1. A brief overview of questionnaires used in the study with their summary score ranges and questions( items)
the Orofacial Esthetic Scale( OES) 16-18 for patient’ s self-evaluation of orofacial aesthetics and the Chewing Function Questionnaire( CFQ) 19 for patient’ s self-evaluation of a chewing function( CF). The objective of this study was to asses treatment effects and after-treatment scores considering self-perceived OHRQoL, chewing function( CF) and orofacial aesthetics( OES) in patients treated with new complete dentures( CD group), and in patients treated with maxillary complete dentures and mandibular Kennedy Class I long saddle removable partial dentures( CD-RPD group). The aim was also to compare the two groups and to assess possible gender and age effects.
2. Methodology
The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. One hundred twenty-six( 126) patients( 72 female and 54 male) participated. The patients were divided into two groups: the CD group( rehabilitated with new complete dentures in both jaws) and the CD-RPD group( treated with new complete dentures in the maxilla and long saddle clasp-retained removable partial dentures in the mandible( Kennedy Class I, edentulous posterior areas bilaterally). There were 68 patients in the CD group( 40 females, 28 males), mean age 69.58 years(± 11.17) and 58 patients in the CD-RPD group( 32 females, 26 males) mean age 66 years(± 8.0). In the CD-RPD group there were no teeth present distally from cuspids and / or second incisors in the mandible. All dentures were made by postgraduate students during training courses for the Prosthodontics Specialist degree. Mandibular partial dentures were made of metal and acrylic resin in order not to break, while all complete dentures were made only of acrylic resin( Polymethyl methacrylate; PMMA). All CD patients had old pairs of complete dentures. In the CD-RPD group all patients had their old complete denture in the maxilla and 74.1 % of them had already old partial removable denture( RPD) in the mandible, while 25.9 % patients were the first time removable partial denture wearers in the lower jaw. The Croatian version of the OES-CRO was used to assess patients’ self-perceived orofacial esthetics. The patients rated their orofacial aesthetics on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5( 1 = completely dissatisfied; 5 = completely satisfied; the summary score ranged from 8 to 40, the higher summary scores indicated greater satisfaction with orofacial
93