PURPOSE: Despite the interest and need to assess orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients, few self-reporting instruments are available to measure this construct, and none describe how prosthodontic patients perceive the appearance of their face, mouth, teeth, and dentures. The development of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) is reported in this article, in particular its conceptual framework, how questionnaire items were generated, and the scale's measurement model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After test conceptualization, the authors solicited esthetic concerns from 17 prosthodontic patients by asking them to evaluate their own photographs. A focus group of 8 dental professionals reduced the initial number of concerns/items and decided on an item response format. Pilot testing in 9 subjects generated the final instrument, the OES. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to investigate OES dimensionality and item analysis to investigate item difficulty and discrimination in 119 subjects. RESULTS: Prosthodontic patients generated an initial 28 esthetic concerns. These items were reduced to 8 preliminary representative items that were subsequently confirmed during pilot testing. Analysis supported 8 items assessing appearance: face, profile, mouth, tooth alignment, tooth shape, tooth color, gums, and overall impression, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). Exploratory factor analysis found only 1 factor and high positive loadings for all items (.73 to .94) on the first factor, supporting the unidimensionality of the OES. CONCLUSIONS: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, is a brief questionnaire that assesses orofacial esthetic impacts.
PURPOSE: Despite the interest and need to assess orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients, few self-reporting instruments are available to measure this construct, and none describe how prosthodontic patients perceive the appearance of their face, mouth, teeth, and dentures. The development of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) is reported in this article, in particular its conceptual framework, how questionnaire items were generated, and the scale's measurement model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After test conceptualization, the authors solicited esthetic concerns from 17 prosthodontic patients by asking them to evaluate their own photographs. A focus group of 8 dental professionals reduced the initial number of concerns/items and decided on an item response format. Pilot testing in 9 subjects generated the final instrument, the OES. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to investigate OES dimensionality and item analysis to investigate item difficulty and discrimination in 119 subjects. RESULTS: Prosthodontic patients generated an initial 28 esthetic concerns. These items were reduced to 8 preliminary representative items that were subsequently confirmed during pilot testing. Analysis supported 8 items assessing appearance: face, profile, mouth, tooth alignment, tooth shape, tooth color, gums, and overall impression, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). Exploratory factor analysis found only 1 factor and high positive loadings for all items (.73 to .94) on the first factor, supporting the unidimensionality of the OES. CONCLUSIONS: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, is a brief questionnaire that assesses orofacial esthetic impacts.
Authors: Santo Davide Ferrara; Eric Baccino; Rafael Boscolo-Berto; Giovanni Comandè; Ranieri Domenici; Claudio Hernandez-Cueto; Mete Korkut Gulmen; George Mendelson; Massimo Montisci; Gian Aristide Norelli; Vilma Pinchi; Mohammed Ranavaya; Dina A Shokry; Vera Sterzik; Yvo Vermylen; Duarte Nuno Vieira; Guido Viel; Riccardo Zoja Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: M T John; D R Reissmann; L Feuerstahler; N Waller; K Baba; P Larsson; A Celebić; G Szabo; K Rener-Sitar Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: Mike T John; Daniel R Reißmann; Leah Feuerstahler; Niels Waller; Kazuyoshi Baba; Pernilla Larsson; Asja Čelebić; Gyula Szabo; Ksenija Rener-Sitar Journal: J Prosthodont Res Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.642
Authors: M T John; L Feuerstahler; N Waller; K Baba; P Larsson; A Celebić; D Kende; K Rener-Sitar; D R Reissmann Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: Miguel Simancas-Pallares; Mike T John; Swati Prodduturu; William A Rush; Christopher J Enstad; Patricia Lenton Journal: J Prosthodont Res Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.642