| Literature DB >> 23015025 |
Qian Zhang1, Dick J Witter, Anneloes E Gerritsen, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Nico H J Creugers.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) related to dental status.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23015025 PMCID: PMC3691481 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0834-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Oral Investig ISSN: 1432-6981 Impact factor: 3.573
Fig. 1Examples of reduced dentitions categorized according to the Eichner index: a Eichner class A2 (posterior occluding pairs in four supporting zones); b Eichner class B1 (posterior occluding pairs in three supporting zones); c Eichner class C1 (no antagonistic contacts)
Number (%) of included subjects (n = 1,462) dentate in upper and lower jaw according to gender and place of residence, distribution of SES, and age (minimum, maximum, and mean)
| Urban | Rural | Total | |
| Female | 405 (58) | 297 (42) | 702 (48) |
| Male | 385 (51) | 375 (49) | 760 (52) |
| Total | 790 (54) | 672 (46) | 1,462 (100) |
| SES high | SES middle | SES low | |
| SESa | 583 | 449 | 428 |
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean (SD) | |
| Age | 40 | 87 | 54.9 (10.5) |
aSES data of two subjects missing
Levels and criteria for dichotomization of the step-by-step branching hierarchy used in the subsequent categories
| Level | Meeting criterion | Dichotomy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| I Dentition level | ≥1 Tooth present in each jaw | ≥1 Tooth vs. no teeth | |
| II Jaw level | ≥10 Teeth in both upper | <10 Teeth in upper | ≥10 Teeth vs. <10 teeth |
| III Anterior level | All 12 anterior teeth present | <12 Anterior teeth | Complete vs. incomplete |
| IV Premolar level | 3 or 4 Occluding pairs of premolars | ≤2 Occluding pairs of premolars | ‘Sufficient’ vs. ‘impaired’ |
| V Molar level | ≥1 Occluding pairs of molars at both left | No occluding pairs of molars at left | ‘Sufficient’ vs. ‘impaired’ |
Distribution of subjects (n = 1,462) according to the condition of meeting/not meeting a functional level in the hierarchical classification system based on natural teeth only (Classnat), natural teeth plus teeth replaced by FDP (ClassF), and natural teeth plus teeth replaced by RDP (ClassR)
| Condition | Molar region ‘sufficient’ | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classnat | ClassF | ClassR | |||||||||
| Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | |||
| >10 teeth in each jaw | Anterior region complete | Premolar region ‘sufficient’ | |||||||||
| Yes | Yes | Yes | 766 | 114 | 880 | 896 | 100 | 996 | 836 | 119 | 955 |
| No | 73 | 40 | 113 | 58 | 31 | 89 | 75 | 38 | 113 | ||
| No | Yes | 148 | 32 | 180 | 130 | 24 | 154 | 156 | 29 | 185 | |
| No | 29 | 3 | 32 | 16 | 4 | 20 | 26 | 3 | 29 | ||
| No | Yes | Yes | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| No | 8 | 39 | 47 | 7 | 34 | 41 | 6 | 31 | 37 | ||
| No | Yes | 3 | 20 | 23 | 2 | 12 | 14 | 4 | 17 | 21 | |
| No | 22 | 159 | 181 | 14 | 132 | 146 | 19 | 96 | 115 | ||
| Total | 1,462 | 1,462 | 1,462 | ||||||||
Odds ratios [95 % CI] for having impaired OHRQoL according to the dental conditions in the multivariable logistic regression model, adjusted for the background variables age, gender, place of residence, SES, and questionnaire administration format
| Conditiona (level) | OR |
| 95 % CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥10 teeth in each jaw (II) | 1.05 | 0.84 | [0.67…1.64] |
| Anterior regions complete (III) | 0.80 | 0.14 | [0.60…1.08] |
| Premolar region ‘sufficient’ (IV) | 0.72 | 0.06 | [0.52…1.01] |
| Molar region ‘sufficient’ (V) | 0.76 | 0.08 | [0.56…1.03] |
| Tooth replacement | 1.18 | 0.20 | [0.92…1.50] |
| AUC dental conditions | 0.584 | ||
| Percentage correctly predicted by dental conditions only | 57.6 | ||
| AUC dental conditions plus background variables | 0.613 | ||
| Percentage correctly predicted by dental conditions plus background variables | 59.2 | ||
Conditions based on configuration of natural teeth only (Classnat)
AUC area under curve
aReference = condition not present
Fig. 2Distribution of subjects dentate in each jaw (n = 1,462) according to the functional classification system based on natural teeth only [3], OHIP-14CN total scores (vertical bars indicate SD) and Likelihood ratios for impaired OHRQoL: I dentate in each jaw, II ≥10 natural teeth in each jaw, III anterior region complete, IV premolar region ‘sufficient’, V molar region ‘sufficient’. Dark columns indicate status of meeting the criterion
Odds ratios, p values, and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of the multivariable logistic regression analysis for having impaired OHRQoL with dental status after reclassification to ClassF and ClassR, adjusted for the background variables age, gender, place of residence, SES, and questionnaire administration format
| Conditiona (level) | In ClassF | In ClassR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR |
| 95 % CI | OR |
| 95 % CI | |
| ≥10 teeth in each jaw (II) | 1.05 | 0.85 | 0.63–1.76 | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.57–1.48 |
| Anterior regions complete (III) |
| 0.04 | 0.54–0.99 | 0.79 | 0.11 | 0.60–1.05 |
| Premolar region ‘sufficient’ (IV) |
| 0.02 | 0.43–0.92 | 0.81 | 0.23 | 0.58–1.14 |
| Molar region ‘sufficient’ (V) | 0.83 | 0.27 | 0.60–1.15 |
| 0.01 | 0.50–0.92 |
| Tooth replacement |
| 0.03 | 1.02–1.65 |
| 0.03 | 1.04–2.08 |
| AUC dental conditions | 0.567 | 0.570 | ||||
| Percentage subjects correctly predicted by dental conditions only | 56.2 | 57.1 | ||||
| AUC dental conditions plus background variables | 0.610 | 0.618 | ||||
| Percentage subjects correctly predicted by dental conditions plus background variable | 59.0 | 59.7 | ||||
Bold figures indicate significant relationships
AUC area under curve
aReference = condition not present
Likelihood ratios for having impaired oral health-related quality of life according to the condition of meeting/not meeting a functional level in the hierarchical classification system, based on natural teeth only (Classnat) and on natural teeth plus replaced teeth (ClassF/ClassR)
| Condition | Predictor | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥10 teeth in each jaw | Anterior region complete | Premolar region ‘sufficient’ | Classnat | ClassF | ClassR | |
| <10 teeth in each jaw | 1.59 (103) | 1.70 (78) | 1.71 (69) | |||
| Yes | Anterior region incomplete | 1.34 (99) | 1.42 (78) | 1.28 (101) | ||
| No | Anterior region incomplete | 1.02 (22) | 1.04 (18) | 1.00 (17) | ||
| Yes | Yes | Premolar region ‘impaired’ | 1.69 (48) | 1.64 (38) | 1.57 (49) | |
| No | No | Premolar region ‘impaired’ | 1.04 (11) | 1.09 (16) | 1.00 (8) | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Molar region ‘impaired’ | 1.29 (56) | 1.09 (46) | 1.33 (58) |
| No | No | No | Molar region ‘impaired’ | 0.99 (8) | 0.97 (4) | 1.03 (8) |
Numbers in parenthesis reflect the smallest number of subjects in the four cells in the respective comparisons