种植与传统义齿治疗患者口腔健康相关生活质量的比较

Megumi Takenaka, Toru Sato, Toshiaki Kurashima, Masaharu Sato, Yoshiteru Sato, C. Masaki, R. Hosokawa
{"title":"种植与传统义齿治疗患者口腔健康相关生活质量的比较","authors":"Megumi Takenaka, Toru Sato, Toshiaki Kurashima, Masaharu Sato, Yoshiteru Sato, C. Masaki, R. Hosokawa","doi":"10.2186/PRP.7.135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with patients who requested implant treatment and conventional denture treatment.Materials and methods: Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaire during July 2004-January 2005 at four dental offices located in Japan. Subjects who requested implant treatment (IT) were 12, and requested conventional denture treatment (DT) were 19. OHRQoL was measured by the 16-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-JP16). The OHIP-JP16 total and subscale scores were calculated by summing the 16 items score without weighting. The mean OHIP-JP16 total scores and the mean scores of six subscales (functional limitation, physical discomfort, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, handicap) between groups were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U-test. Chi square tests were used compare responses to individual items. ‘Never’ and ‘hardly ever,’ (no impact) were recorded as ‘0’, ‘occasionally’, ‘fairly often’, and ‘very often’ (any impact) were recorded as ‘1’.Results: The mean age was 62.4 years old in IT and 66.6 years old in DT (p=0.596). No differences in denture status, self-perceived oral health, number of teeth were found between two groups. DT subjects had better OHIP-JP16 total scores than IT, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Chi square tests were performed for each of 16 items. The number of subject reported ‘any impact’ was significantly greater (p<0.05) in IT in the following items; ‘worried’, ‘self-conscious’, ‘avoid eating’, ‘upset’ and ‘life unsatisfactory’. No significant differences were detected in the following 5 subscales; ‘functional limitation’, ‘psychological discomfort’, ‘physical disability’ , ‘psychological disability’ and ‘handicap’, while ‘physical discomfort’ was signify- cantly lower (e.g. higher QOL status) in DT.Conclusion: OHIP-JP16 scores of the subjects who requested implant treatment were significantly higher in ‘physical discomfort’ than requested conventional denture. The results of this study suggested that in the patients who requested implant treatment, OHRQoL might be lower than the patients who requested conventional denture treatment.","PeriodicalId":306414,"journal":{"name":"Prosthodontic Research & Practice","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Oral Health-related Quality of Life between Patients Requesting Implant Treatment and Conventional Denture Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Megumi Takenaka, Toru Sato, Toshiaki Kurashima, Masaharu Sato, Yoshiteru Sato, C. Masaki, R. Hosokawa\",\"doi\":\"10.2186/PRP.7.135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with patients who requested implant treatment and conventional denture treatment.Materials and methods: Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaire during July 2004-January 2005 at four dental offices located in Japan. Subjects who requested implant treatment (IT) were 12, and requested conventional denture treatment (DT) were 19. OHRQoL was measured by the 16-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-JP16). The OHIP-JP16 total and subscale scores were calculated by summing the 16 items score without weighting. The mean OHIP-JP16 total scores and the mean scores of six subscales (functional limitation, physical discomfort, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, handicap) between groups were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U-test. Chi square tests were used compare responses to individual items. ‘Never’ and ‘hardly ever,’ (no impact) were recorded as ‘0’, ‘occasionally’, ‘fairly often’, and ‘very often’ (any impact) were recorded as ‘1’.Results: The mean age was 62.4 years old in IT and 66.6 years old in DT (p=0.596). No differences in denture status, self-perceived oral health, number of teeth were found between two groups. DT subjects had better OHIP-JP16 total scores than IT, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Chi square tests were performed for each of 16 items. The number of subject reported ‘any impact’ was significantly greater (p<0.05) in IT in the following items; ‘worried’, ‘self-conscious’, ‘avoid eating’, ‘upset’ and ‘life unsatisfactory’. No significant differences were detected in the following 5 subscales; ‘functional limitation’, ‘psychological discomfort’, ‘physical disability’ , ‘psychological disability’ and ‘handicap’, while ‘physical discomfort’ was signify- cantly lower (e.g. higher QOL status) in DT.Conclusion: OHIP-JP16 scores of the subjects who requested implant treatment were significantly higher in ‘physical discomfort’ than requested conventional denture. The results of this study suggested that in the patients who requested implant treatment, OHRQoL might be lower than the patients who requested conventional denture treatment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":306414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prosthodontic Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prosthodontic Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2186/PRP.7.135\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prosthodontic Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2186/PRP.7.135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:比较口腔健康相关生活质量(OHRQoL)与要求种植和常规义齿治疗的患者。材料与方法:2004年7月至2005年1月在日本4家牙科诊所采用自填问卷的方式收集资料。要求种植治疗(IT)者12例,要求常规义齿治疗(DT)者19例。OHRQoL采用16项口腔健康影响量表(OHIP-JP16)进行测量。OHIP-JP16总分和分量表得分由16个条目得分之和计算,不加权重。采用Mann-Whitney u检验分析各组OHIP-JP16总分均值和功能限制、身体不适、心理不适、身体残疾、心理残疾6个分量表得分均值。卡方检验用于比较对个别项目的反应。“Never”和“hardly ever”(没有影响)记录为“0”,“occasionally”,“fairly often”和“very often”(有影响)记录为“1”。结果:IT组平均年龄62.4岁,DT组平均年龄66.6岁(p=0.596)。两组患者在义齿状态、自我口腔健康状况、牙数等方面均无差异。DT组的OHIP-JP16总分高于IT组,但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。对16个项目分别进行卡方检验。在以下项目中,报告“有任何影响”的受试者数量显著高于IT (p<0.05);“担心”、“自我意识”、“不吃东西”、“心烦意乱”和“生活不满意”。以下5个分量表无显著性差异;“功能限制”、“心理不适”、“身体残疾”、“心理残疾”和“残障”,而“身体不适”则明显较低(例如生活质量状况较高)。结论:申请种植义齿的受试者在“身体不适”方面的OHIP-JP16评分明显高于申请常规义齿的受试者。本研究结果提示,在要求种植的患者中,OHRQoL可能低于要求常规义齿治疗的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparison of Oral Health-related Quality of Life between Patients Requesting Implant Treatment and Conventional Denture Treatment
Purpose: To compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with patients who requested implant treatment and conventional denture treatment.Materials and methods: Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaire during July 2004-January 2005 at four dental offices located in Japan. Subjects who requested implant treatment (IT) were 12, and requested conventional denture treatment (DT) were 19. OHRQoL was measured by the 16-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-JP16). The OHIP-JP16 total and subscale scores were calculated by summing the 16 items score without weighting. The mean OHIP-JP16 total scores and the mean scores of six subscales (functional limitation, physical discomfort, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, handicap) between groups were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U-test. Chi square tests were used compare responses to individual items. ‘Never’ and ‘hardly ever,’ (no impact) were recorded as ‘0’, ‘occasionally’, ‘fairly often’, and ‘very often’ (any impact) were recorded as ‘1’.Results: The mean age was 62.4 years old in IT and 66.6 years old in DT (p=0.596). No differences in denture status, self-perceived oral health, number of teeth were found between two groups. DT subjects had better OHIP-JP16 total scores than IT, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Chi square tests were performed for each of 16 items. The number of subject reported ‘any impact’ was significantly greater (p<0.05) in IT in the following items; ‘worried’, ‘self-conscious’, ‘avoid eating’, ‘upset’ and ‘life unsatisfactory’. No significant differences were detected in the following 5 subscales; ‘functional limitation’, ‘psychological discomfort’, ‘physical disability’ , ‘psychological disability’ and ‘handicap’, while ‘physical discomfort’ was signify- cantly lower (e.g. higher QOL status) in DT.Conclusion: OHIP-JP16 scores of the subjects who requested implant treatment were significantly higher in ‘physical discomfort’ than requested conventional denture. The results of this study suggested that in the patients who requested implant treatment, OHRQoL might be lower than the patients who requested conventional denture treatment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical Evaluation of Injectable Dental Ceramic Restorations Relations Among TMD, Bruxism, Lifestyle, and Psychological Stress Stabilities of Maxillary Complete Overdentures With and Without Abutment Tooth Support — Examination by Dynamics of Atmospheric Pressure as an Index of Denture Stability Introduction of Parallel Measurement and Supplementary Apparatus Newly Developed Effects of a Denture Adhesive in an Edentulous Maxillectomy Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1