Nada El Osta1,2,3,4, Elissa Haddad5,6, Lana El Osta7, Jihad Fakhouri5, Robert Saad8. 1. Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. pronada99@hotmail.com. 2. Equipe d'accueil EA 4847, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique (CROC), Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. pronada99@hotmail.com. 3. Laboratoire de Recherche Cranio-Faciale, Unité de Santé Orale, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. pronada99@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. pronada99@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 6. Laboratoire de Recherche Cranio-Faciale, Unité de Santé Orale, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 7. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 8. Public Health, Private Practice, Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the psychometric properties of three OHRQoL indicators (GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT) in a group of complete edentulous subjects and to explore the ability of these instruments to distinguish between individuals with different prosthetic and oral health status. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Edentulous individuals aged 60 years and more were recruited between January 2019 and February 2020 in a medical and dental care centers. The Lebanese versions of GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT were used. External and internal consistencies were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach alpha, respectively. The concurrent validity was evaluated by testing the indicators against a proxy measure of a similar concept. To test their discriminative abilities, the ADD (GOHAI and OHIP) and SC (GOHAI and OHIP) scores were dichotomized according to the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively, and multivariate analyses were performed using sociodemographic, clinical, and subjective health parameters as explanatory variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and two edentulous subjects (age: 72.94 ± 7.378 years) were included. The proportion of subjects with no impact was lower for OHIP-EDENT (7.9%) compared to GOHAI (28.2%) and OHIP-14 (38.6%). Reproducibility was satisfactory for all OHRQoL tools since they were able to reproduce the results consistently in time (ICC > 0.80). The Cronbach alpha values were greater than 0.8 indicating acceptable internal consistency. The concurrent validity of the three tools was acceptable since subjects with lower OHRQoL score were less satisfied with their dentures and reported a higher need for self-rated therapy. Concerning the discriminant validity, OHIP-EDENT was more discriminant than OHIP-14 and GOHAI, since it was more able to identify patients with poor prosthetic issues or using instable denture. CONCLUSION: The OHIP-EDENT was more effective in identifying edentulous individuals with oral and prosthetic problems. Our results can help decide which dental instrument to use to assess the perception of oral health in edentulous individuals. More prospective studies are required to compare their evaluative properties.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the psychometric properties of three OHRQoL indicators (GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT) in a group of complete edentulous subjects and to explore the ability of these instruments to distinguish between individuals with different prosthetic and oral health status. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Edentulous individuals aged 60 years and more were recruited between January 2019 and February 2020 in a medical and dental care centers. The Lebanese versions of GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT were used. External and internal consistencies were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach alpha, respectively. The concurrent validity was evaluated by testing the indicators against a proxy measure of a similar concept. To test their discriminative abilities, the ADD (GOHAI and OHIP) and SC (GOHAI and OHIP) scores were dichotomized according to the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively, and multivariate analyses were performed using sociodemographic, clinical, and subjective health parameters as explanatory variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and two edentulous subjects (age: 72.94 ± 7.378 years) were included. The proportion of subjects with no impact was lower for OHIP-EDENT (7.9%) compared to GOHAI (28.2%) and OHIP-14 (38.6%). Reproducibility was satisfactory for all OHRQoL tools since they were able to reproduce the results consistently in time (ICC > 0.80). The Cronbach alpha values were greater than 0.8 indicating acceptable internal consistency. The concurrent validity of the three tools was acceptable since subjects with lower OHRQoL score were less satisfied with their dentures and reported a higher need for self-rated therapy. Concerning the discriminant validity, OHIP-EDENT was more discriminant than OHIP-14 and GOHAI, since it was more able to identify patients with poor prosthetic issues or using instable denture. CONCLUSION: The OHIP-EDENT was more effective in identifying edentulous individuals with oral and prosthetic problems. Our results can help decide which dental instrument to use to assess the perception of oral health in edentulous individuals. More prospective studies are required to compare their evaluative properties.