| Literature DB >> 29703188 |
Eijiro Yamaga1, Yusuke Sato2, Shunsuke Minakuchi2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate Locker's multidimensional model of oral health in Japanese edentulous patients with an item weighting method using factor score weights, which is more accurate than the sum scoring method. A previous study tested Locker's model in edentulous elders in the UK, using empirical evidence from the Short-Form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Investigating the model using the OHIP for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT), which contains 19 items suitable for these patients, may complement that study. Testing Locker's model in Japanese patients may support generalization of the model.Entities:
Keywords: Conceptual model; Edentulous; Factor score weight; Generalization; Oral health quality of life; Structural equation model
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29703188 PMCID: PMC5924454 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0527-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Patient characteristics, oral condition, and quality of previous dentures
| Variable | Participants ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 140 (40.8) | |
| Female | 203 (59.2) | |
| Edentulous period (years) | ||
| < 1 | 77 (22.4) | |
| 1 to < 3 | 28 (8.2) | |
| 3 to < 5 | 18 (5.3) | |
| 5 to < 10 | 42 (12.2) | |
| 10+ | 174 (50.7) | |
| Forgotten | 4 (1.2) | |
| Age of present denture (years) | ||
| < 5 | 127 (37.0) | |
| 5 to < 10 | 132 (38.5) | |
| 10+ | 81 (23.6) | |
| Forgotten | 3 (0.9) | |
| Ridge form (Cawood & Howell classification)a | ||
| Maxilla | Mandible | |
| Class II | 6 (1.7) | 18 (5.3) |
| Class III | 249 (72.6) | 103 (30.0) |
| Class IV | 57 (16.6) | 81(23.6) |
| Class V | 28 (8.2) | 106 (30.9) |
| Class VI | 1 (0.3) | 31 (9.0) |
| Others | 2 (0.6) | 4 (1.2) |
| Denture stability (Kapur method)b | ||
| 0 | 37 (10.8) | 132 (38.5) |
| 1 | 109 (31.7) | 139 (40.5) |
| 2 | 197 (57.4) | 72 (21.0) |
| Denture retention (Kapur method)c | ||
| 0 | 24 (7.0) | 134 (39.1) |
| 1 | 62 (18.1) | 105 (30.6) |
| 2 | 85 (24.8) | 57 (16.6) |
| 3 | 172 (50.1) | 47 (13.7) |
| Jaw relation | ||
| Premature contact (−) | 232 (67.6) | |
| Premature contact (+) | 111 (32.4) | |
aClass II, immediately post extraction; Class III, well-rounded ridge form, adequate in height and width; Class IV, knife-edge ridge form, adequate in height and inadequate in width; Class V, flat ridge form, inadequate in height and width; Class VI, depressed ridge form, with some basal loss evident. bScoring system: 0, no stability, when a denture base demonstrates extreme rocking on its supporting structures under pressure; 1, some stability, when a denture base demonstrates moderate rocking on its supporting structures under pressure; 2, sufficient stability, when a denture base demonstrates slight or no rocking on its supporting structures under pressure. cScoring system: 0, no retention, when a denture is seated in place, it displaces itself; 1, minimum retention, when a denture offers slight resistance to vertical pull and little or no resistance to lateral force; 2, moderate retention, when a denture offers moderate resistance to vertical pull and little or no resistance to lateral force; 3, good retention, when a denture offers maximum resistance to vertical pull and sufficient resistance to lateral force
Pearson’s correlations after item weighting
| Pearson’s correlations | Summary measures | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional limitation | Physical pain | Psychological discomfort | Disability | Mean | Median | SD | Score range | |
| Functional limitation | – | – | – | – | 5.93 | 6 | 3.04 | 0–12 |
| Physical pain | 0.812*** | – | – | – | 6.54 | 6 | 3.91 | 0–16 |
| Psychological discomfort | 0.694*** | 0.812*** | – | – | 3.21 | 3 | 2.26 | 0–32 |
| Disability | 0.545*** | 0.676*** | 0.736*** | – | 7.47 | 7 | 5.97 | 0–8 |
| Handicap | 0.438*** | 0.544*** | 0.589*** | 0.756*** | 1.72 | 2 | 1.86 | 0–8 |
SD standard deviation, the means, SDs, and ranges indicate the scores for each variable before item weighting. ***P < 0.001
Fig. 1The confirmatory factor analysis model to derive factor score weights. Bootstrap standardized direct effects for third-order hierarchical model of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). Numbers on the upper right-hand side of the rectangles and ellipses represent the coefficient of determination associated with each structural equation. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Factor score weights for each item derived from the CFA model using the bootstrap method
| Item | Β | Bootstrap SE | Bias-corrected 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.025** | 0.008 | 0.012 / 0.044 |
| 2 | 0.035** | 0.012 | 0.015 / 0.065 |
| 3 | 0.045** | 0.014 | 0.022 / 0.079 |
| 4 | 0.037** | 0.010 | 0.019 / 0.059 |
| 5 | 0.019*** | 0.006 | 0.009 / 0.035 |
| 6 | 0.049** | 0.016 | 0.022 / 0.083 |
| 7 | 0.092** | 0.034 | 0.039 / 0.166 |
| 8 | 0.202** | 0.044 | 0.112 / 0.280 |
| 9 | 0.114** | 0.033 | 0.054 / 0.180 |
| 10 | 0.019** | 0.008 | 0.007 / 0.040 |
| 11 | 0.050** | 0.016 | 0.022 / 0.086 |
| 12 | 0.032** | 0.011 | 0.014 / 0.056 |
| 13 | 0.101** | 0.056 | 0.041 / 0.261 |
| 14 | 0.115** | 0.055 | 0.051 / 0.251 |
| 15 | 0.015** | 0.008 | 0.005 / 0.040 |
| 16 | 0.037** | 0.019 | 0.015 / 0.089 |
| 17 | 0.029** | 0.016 | 0.010 / 0.074 |
| 18 | 0.100* | 0.032 | 0.053 / 0.177 |
| 19 | 0.022* | 0.013 | 0.007 / 0.060 |
OHIP Oral Health Impact Profile, CFA confirmatory factor analysis, SE standard error, CI confidence interval, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 2The (modified) final Baker model. Bootstrap standardized estimates (SE/BC 95% confidence intervals) for the modified Baker model (n = 343) after item weighting using factor score weights. Numbers on the upper right-hand side of the rectangles represent the coefficient of determination. Residual errors are eliminated for concise visual interpretation. Solid (full) lines indicate direct paths and dashed (dotted) lines indicate indirect paths. **P < 0.01