Nina Lundegren1, Melvin M Sohrabi2, Margareta Molin Thorén3, Sigvard Åkerman4. 1. a Department of Oral Diagnostics, Faculty of Odontology , Malmö University , Malmö , Sweden. 2. b Department of Oral Prosthodontics , the Eastman Institute, Public Dental Health , Stockholm , Sweden. 3. c Department of Odontology, Prosthetic Dentistry , Umeå University , Umeå , Sweden. 4. d Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology , Malmö University , Malmö , Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of dental prosthetic restorations in an adult population, to study the agreement between self-reports and clinical findings of prosthetic restorations, and to study answers from a questionnaire in relation to the prevalence of prosthetic restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 10,000 adults. A further sample of 1000 individuals was invited to answer the questionnaire and also participate in a clinical study. The agreement between self-report and clinical findings was analyzed, as were the associations between prosthetic restorations and questionnaire responses, using the chi2 test. RESULTS: A total of 40% of the sample had fixed dental prostheses (FDP), 2.7% had removable dentures. The agreement between self-report and clinical findings was 93%. 34.7% of the individuals with no prosthetic restorations were university graduates and 4% of individuals with removable complete dentures. Oral health had the greatest impact on the quality of life of younger individuals with FDP, with an OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile) score of 7.3 for the age group 20-39 years compared to 4.9 for the age group 65-89 years. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire method can be a cost-effective way to determine the prevalence of prosthetic restorations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of dental prosthetic restorations in an adult population, to study the agreement between self-reports and clinical findings of prosthetic restorations, and to study answers from a questionnaire in relation to the prevalence of prosthetic restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 10,000 adults. A further sample of 1000 individuals was invited to answer the questionnaire and also participate in a clinical study. The agreement between self-report and clinical findings was analyzed, as were the associations between prosthetic restorations and questionnaire responses, using the chi2 test. RESULTS: A total of 40% of the sample had fixed dental prostheses (FDP), 2.7% had removable dentures. The agreement between self-report and clinical findings was 93%. 34.7% of the individuals with no prosthetic restorations were university graduates and 4% of individuals with removable complete dentures. Oral health had the greatest impact on the quality of life of younger individuals with FDP, with an OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile) score of 7.3 for the age group 20-39 years compared to 4.9 for the age group 65-89 years. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire method can be a cost-effective way to determine the prevalence of prosthetic restorations.