PURPOSE: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES)-an instrument assessing self-reported orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OES has seven items addressing direct esthetic impacts in the orofacial region, as well as an eighth global assessment item. The response format was a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied with appearance, respectively). OES summary scores ranged from 0 (worst score) to 70 (best score). Test-retest reliability (n = 27) and internal consistency (n = 119) were assessed. Content validation (asking patients about their satisfaction with the questionnaire content, n = 119) and discriminative validation (comparing OES scores between patients and healthy controls, n = 119) were performed. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating patients' own OES scores (n = 29) with ratings from a consensus expert group (n = 4) and with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) esthetic-item summary score (n = 119). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for the OES scores (intraclass correlation coefficient = .96). Internal consistency was satisfactory for esthetically impaired patients (n = 27, Cronbach alpha = .86). Patients rated their satisfaction with the questionnaire content as 7.8 +/- 1.3 units on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). OES scores discriminated esthetically impaired patients (31.4 units) from healthy controls (45.9 units, P < .001). OES scores correlated well with other measures of the same construct (r = .43 for patients' own assessment with an assessment by experts using the OES, r = -.72 for a correlation with the OHIP's three esthetic-related items). CONCLUSIONS: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, exhibited good score reliability and validity.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES)-an instrument assessing self-reported orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OES has seven items addressing direct esthetic impacts in the orofacial region, as well as an eighth global assessment item. The response format was a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied with appearance, respectively). OES summary scores ranged from 0 (worst score) to 70 (best score). Test-retest reliability (n = 27) and internal consistency (n = 119) were assessed. Content validation (asking patients about their satisfaction with the questionnaire content, n = 119) and discriminative validation (comparing OES scores between patients and healthy controls, n = 119) were performed. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating patients' own OES scores (n = 29) with ratings from a consensus expert group (n = 4) and with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) esthetic-item summary score (n = 119). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for the OES scores (intraclass correlation coefficient = .96). Internal consistency was satisfactory for esthetically impairedpatients (n = 27, Cronbach alpha = .86). Patients rated their satisfaction with the questionnaire content as 7.8 +/- 1.3 units on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). OES scores discriminated esthetically impairedpatients (31.4 units) from healthy controls (45.9 units, P < .001). OES scores correlated well with other measures of the same construct (r = .43 for patients' own assessment with an assessment by experts using the OES, r = -.72 for a correlation with the OHIP's three esthetic-related items). CONCLUSIONS: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, exhibited good score reliability and validity.
Authors: Ira Sierwald; Mike T John; Oliver Schierz; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Daniel R Reissmann Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.938
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: Edoardo Rella; Paolo De Angelis; Tiziano Nardella; Antonio D'Addona; Paolo Francesco Manicone Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.606
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
Authors: Mike T John; Pernilla Larsson; Krister Nilner; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Thomas List Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 3.186