Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Adult Patients in Mashhad, Iran

Authors

1 Oral and Maxillofacial Disease Research Center, Department of Periodontics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Periodontics, Dental Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 PhD in Dental Public Health, King’s College, London, UK

4 Department of Operative Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

5 Private Practice, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Quality of life is defined as the sense of well-being and satisfaction with daily performances influenced by dental and oral conditions. Oral diseases are very common and have impacts on different aspects of individual's life and can change their performances. In other word, they can change the quality of life. The real impact of health and disease on daily performances is considered as Health-Related Quality of Life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impacts of oral diseases on quality of life in patients referred to Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Dental Clinic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed using non randomized sampling method. For this study, 500 patients referred to Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Dental Clinic with age >15 years were recruited. An educated interviewer asked the questions of the Persian version of OIDP questionnaire, which was valid and reliable for Iranian population. In this index the frequency and severity of each impact were recorded. Finally, each was attributed to specific oral conditions, as indicated by the respondents. The OIDP score is expressed as the sum of the different performance scores divided by the maximum possible score. Results: According to the results of this study, 84% of patients had negative impacts on their quality of life. Gender and job had significant associations with OIDP score. There was not any significant association between OIDP score and general health. The most and the least commonly affected daily performances were eating and going out, respectively. Conclusion: The most and the least effective oral diseases were toothache and tooth size and shape, respectively so the most treatment need is root canal therapy and tooth repair and to relieve pain.

Keywords


Original Research

 

 


Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Adult Patients in Mashhad, Iran

 

Amir Moeintaghavi1, Hamidreza Arab2, Naser Sargolzaei2, Mojtaba Dorri3, Fatemeh Darvishzadeh4, Mahyareh Alizadeh5

1 Oral and Maxillofacial Disease Research Center, Department of Periodontics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Periodontics, Dental Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 PhD in Dental Public Health, King’s College, London, UK

4 Department of Operative Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

5 Private Practice, Mashhad, Iran

 

Received 21 July 2013 and Accepted 30 September 2013

 


Abstract

Introduction: Quality of life is defined as the sense of well-being and satisfaction with daily performances influenced by dental and oral conditions. Oral diseases are very common and have impacts on different aspects of individual's life and can change their performances. In other word, they can change the quality of life. The real impact of health and disease on daily performances is considered as Health-Related Quality of Life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impacts of oral diseases on quality of life in patients referred to Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Dental Clinic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed using non randomized sampling method. For this study, 500 patients referred to Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Dental Clinic with age >15 years were recruited. An educated interviewer asked the questions of the Persian version of OIDP questionnaire, which was valid and reliable for Iranian population. In this index the frequency and severity of each impact were recorded. Finally, each was attributed to specific oral conditions, as indicated by the respondents. The OIDP score is expressed as the sum of the different performance scores divided by the maximum possible score. Results: According to the results of this study, 84% of patients had negative impacts on their quality of life. Gender and job had significant associations with OIDP score. There was not any significant association between OIDP score and general health. The most and the least commonly affected daily performances were eating and going out, respectively. Conclusion: The most and the least effective oral diseases were toothache and tooth size and shape, respectively so the most treatment need is root canal therapy and tooth repair and to relieve pain.

 

Key words: Quality of life, OIDP, oral impacts, adult patients.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Moeintaghavi A, Arab H, Sargolzaei N, Dorri M, Darvishzadeh F, Alizadeh M. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Adult Patients in Mashhad, Iran. J Dent Mater Tech 2013; 2(4): 114-20.

 

 

Introduction

Oral diseases are among the most common diseases of human being. They are associated with economic, social, and psychological impacts that impinge on oral function, appearance, and social interactions, leading to the disruption of the daily routines (1). For example, tooth loss can disrupt the performance of normal oral functions, such as mastication, speaking, and smiling. For many individuals, the impacts of oral condition on physical appearance and social interactions are more important than oral functions such as mastication. Appearance can in turn affect the self-confidence of an individual, and might be the prime reason for seeking treatment for an oral condition (2-5). Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of oral conditions on quality of life when assessing the treatment needs of a community.

Different oral health related quality of life indices have been developed to assist with measuring the impact of oral conditions of daily life and treatment needs. Majority of these indices use frequency of oral impacts to measure treatment needs. These instruments may be questioned for their tendency to overestimate oral health needs and inability to reflect the emotional effects (e.g., pain or discomfort) of oral concerns (6,7). The Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) index is a survey-based instrument that assesses oral conditions that adversely affect the daily activities of living (8).

OIDP index takes into account the severity as well as frequency of oral impacts when measuring treatment needs. It focuses on the assessment of the impacts caused by oral conditions on the person's abilities to perform activities and behaviors of daily life (9). The OIDP has been used in different studies of adult populations in Great Britain and Greece (8,10), Thailand (11), Tanzania (12), Uganda (13), and Norway (14). The measure has proved to be reliable and valid in cross-sectional population-based studies as well as in studies of patients with specific oral disorders, such as traumatic injuries and malocclusion (15,16).

Dorri et al. (17) evaluated the validity and reliability of a Persian version of the OIDP index in a sample of 285 working Iranian adults, and concluded that the index is valid and reliable for use in 20- to 50-year-old working adult Iranians.

The present study was performed to assess the oral health related quality of life of Iranian patients in Mashhad.

 

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study employed a convenient sampling method. Based on Dorri et al. (17) study, with α =0.05 and β=0.2, sample size was calculated equal to 500 patients. All the samples were recruited from patients visiting Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Clinic. Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry is the only dental school in Mashhad and patients with different range of oral health problems receive treatments provided by undergraduate and postgraduate students. The Jahad Clinic is a private specialist health care centre and patients with complex oral health problems referred by their general dental practitioners attend this centre. After explaining the purpose and evaluation method of the study, each participant provided written informed consent. Personal information, including age, gender, education, occupation, and place of residence, were recorded. Trained and calibrated interviewers administered the Persian language version of the OIDP questionnaire.

Each participant verbally answered all of the OIDP questions within 20 minutes. The items addressed various aspects of a typical daily routine, including eating, speaking, denture or tooth cleaning, light activities, going out, sleeping, smiling, emotional stability, enjoying social contacts, and performing occupational tasks. For each item, the frequency and severity of impact and its value were recorded. Interviewers associated each of the recorded data with a particular oral condition. This information was used for condition specific analysis. Performance score for each function was calculated as follows:

Performance score = Severity score × Frequency score

The OIDP percentage was calculated by dividing the Performance score by the maximum possible score.

Each patient was asked about his/her general and oral health, the correlation between them, and any experience of pain during the past 6 months. The general health status was recorded according to personal statements. The oral condition of each patient was examined clinically with an explorer, mouth mirror, and periodontal probe (Hu-Freiday, Michigan, USA) while he/she was sitting on a standard dental unit in a dental clinic .Since the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that the distribution of data was normal, the Chi-square test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and t-test were used for statistical analysis.

 

Results

A total of 500 patients (204 male, 296 female; mean age: 34.1 ± 11.3 years; range: 15-87 years) who visited Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Clinic in Mashhad during 2009 between January to December, were invited to take part in the study.

There was no significant difference in age between the included males and females. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of interviewed patients. Eating was the most commonly affected activity (66.8%), while going out (8%) and working (8.8%) were the least affected. No significant differences in impacts were observed between males and females. Impacts of oral health on emotional status and sleeping were seen more frequently among females than among males (Table 2).

 Toothache was the most common oral complaint among participants citing difficulties in eating (48.8%), speaking (20%), cleaning teeth (33.5%), physical activity (52%), going out (45%), sleeping (63.2%), relaxing (65.1%), emotional status (51.8%), and working (52.2%). Smiling was most associated with complaints of broken teeth and tooth color (16.3% each). Bad breath (24.3%) was most cited as affecting social contacts.

Mean OIDP scores of the 500 study participants was 9.17 (±11.48). Differences in OIDP values were observed between male and female participants, with female participants displaying a higher OIDP score (lower quality of life) than males (Table 3). The OIDP scores also depended on occupation (Table 4) and education level (Table 5). Persons who were unemployed or housewives had higher OIDP scores and participants with only an elementary school education level displayed greater OIDP scores than participants with more than an elementary school education. Poor oral health was associated with a high OIDP compared to other oral health–related groups (Table 6). However, no significant differences in OIDP scores were observed between the various groups in terms of general health (Table 7).


 

 

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of subjects

Characteristic

Male

N (%)

Female

N (%)

Total Number (%)

Occupation

Unemployed or housewife

8 (4%)

148 (56.5%)

156 (31.2%)

Student

35 (17.7%)

54 (20.6%)

89 (17.8%)

Employee

155 (78.3%)

60 (22.9%)

215 (43%)

 

 

 

 

 

Education

Elementary

22 (10.8%)

44 (14.9%)

66 (13.2%)

Less than high school

32 (15.7%)

53 (18%)

85 (17%)

High school

65 (31.9%)

106 (35.9%)

171 (34.2%)

Diploma

23 (11.3%)

27 (9.2%)

50 (10%)

BA

48 (23.5%)

57 (19.3%)

105 (21%)

MA

5 (2.5%)

1 (0.3%)

6 (1.2%)

PhD

9 (4.4%)

7 (2.4%)

16 (3.2%)

 

 

 

 

 

General Health

Excellent

71 (34.8%)

90 (30.4%)

161 (32.2%)

Very good

26 (12.7%)

56 (18.9%)

82 (16.4%)

Good

91 (44.6%)

108 (36.5%)

199 (39.8%)

Fair

13 (6.4%)

38 (12.8%)

51 (10.2%)

Poor

3 (1.5%)

4 (1.4%)

7 (1.4%)

 

 

 

 

 

Oral Health

Excellent

20 (9.8%)

24 (8.1%)

44 (8.8%)

Very good

23 (11.3%)

45 (15.2%)

68 (13.6%)

Good

74 (36.3%)

91 (30.7%)

165 (33%)

Fair

58 (28.4%)

101 (34.1%)

159 (31.8%)

Poor

29 (14.2%)

35 (11.8%)

64 (12.8%)

 

 

 

 

 

Tooth brushing (per day)

>3 times

7 (3.4%)

19 (6.4%)

26 (5.2%)

Twice

44 (21.6%)

101 (34.1%)

145 (29%)

Once

88 (43.1%)

126 (42.6%)

214 (42.8%)

 

54 (26.5%)

42 (14.2%)

96 (19.2%)

None

11 (5.4%)

8 (2.7%)

19 (3.8%)

 

 

 

 

 

Flossing (per day)

>3 times

2 (1%)

8 (2.7%)

10 (2%)

Twice

17 (8.3%)

29 (9.8%)

46 (9.2%)

Once

40 (19.6%)

80 (27%)

120 (24%)

 

38 (18.6%)

60 (20.3%)

8 (19.6%)

None

107 (52.5%)

119 (40.2%)

226 (45.2%)

 

 

 

 

 

Mouth rinse (per day)

>3 times

1 (0.5%)

2 (0.7%)

3 (0.6%)

Twice

7 (3.4%)

9 (3%)

16 (3.2%)

Once

24 (11.8%)

33 (11.1%)

57 (11.4%)

 

14 (6.9%)

41 (13.9%)

55 (11%)

None

158 (77.5%)

211 (71.3%)

369 (73.5%)

 

Table 2. Functional impacts of oral health among participants

Total With impact

Total with no impact

With impact

No impact

Daily routines

female

male

female

male

% Affected (N)

% Affected (N)

% Affected

(N)

% Affected

(N)

% Affected (N)

% Affected

(N)

 

66.8

(334)

 

0.4   

(2)

 

99.5 (214)

 

99.2 (120)

 

0.5      (1)

 

0.8    

 (1)

Eating

 

16

(80)

 

0.4           (2)

 

98.3

(58)

 

95.7 

(22)

 

1.7      (1)

 

4.3    

 (1)

Speaking

 

28.6

(143)

 

0.4

(2)

 

98.9

(91)

 

98.1

(52)

 

1.1    

(1)

 

1.9     

 (1)

Cleaning teeth

 

10

(50)

 

0.2

(1)

 

100

(36)

 

93.3

 (14)

 

0     

 (0)

 

6.7      

(1)

Physical activities

 

8

(40)

 

0.4

(2)

 

95.7

(22)

 

94.7

 (18)

 

4.3   

(1)

 

5.3     

(1)

Going out

 

21.2

(106)

 

0.2

(1)

 

100

(59)

 

97.9

(47)

 

0      

(0)

 

2.1     

(1)

Sleeping

 

13.2

(66)

 

0.2

(1)

 

97.4

(37)

 

100

(29)

 

2.6   

(1)

 

0        

(0)

Relaxing

 

22

(110)

 

0.4

(2)

 

98.6

(70)

 

97.6

(40)

 

1.4    

(1)

 

2.4    

 (1)

Smiling

 

21.6

(108)

 

0.0

(0)

 

100

(67)

 

100

(41)

 

0      

(0)

 

0         (0)

Emotional status

 

14.8

(74)

 

0.4

(2)

 

97.5

(39)

 

97.2

(35)

 

2.5    

(1)

 

2.8      (1)

Social contacts

 

8.8

(44)

 

0.4

(2)

 

95.2

(20)

 

96 

 (24)

 

4.8    

(1)

 

4         (1)

Working

 

 

Table 3. Association of OIDP score with gender

Pv

T

Mean

Number

Gender

0.001

3.343-

12.55 ± 10.51

296

Female

9.43 ± 7.22

204

Male

 

 

Table 4. Association of OIDP score with occupation

ANOVA test result

Standard Deviation

Mean

Number

Occupation

11.520=F

0.000=P

14.92

12.51

156

Unemployed or housewives

6.62

5.75

89

Student

9.87

8.18

215

Employee

 

 

Table 5. Association of OIDP score with education level

ANOVA test result

Standard Deviation

Mean

Number

Education

2.222=F

0.040=P

18.75

12.92

66

Elementary

10.20

9.34

85

Junior high school

11.16

9.62

171

High school

7.58

8.36

50

Diploma

8.51

7.11

105

BA

10.81

6.96

6

MA

4.78

5.11

16

PhD

 

 

Table 6. Association of OIDP score with reported oral health

ANOVA test result

Standard Deviation

Mean

Number

Oral health status

0.838=F

0.000=P

9.41

6.65

44

Excellent

8.62

5.78

68

Very good

9.41

7.96

165

Good

13.41

10.79

159

Fair

13.29

13.59

64

Poor

 

 

Table 7. Association of OIDP score with reported general health

ANOVA test result

Standard deviation

Mean

Number

General health status

1.107 =F

0.353=P

10.50

8.93

161

Excellent

9.77

7.43

82

Very good

12.71

9.40

199

Good

10.75

11.41

51

Fair

18.66

12.09

7

Poor

 

 


Discussion

In this study, 500 patients visiting Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and a private dental clinic (Jahad Clinic) were recruited to evaluate their OHRQoL. The results showed that oral conditions have multiple impacts on health and function among adults living in Mashhad, with 84% of the patients reporting negative impacts of their oral health on their quality of life. This rate is higher than those reported in various other studies throughout the world (11,13,18-24) and even in Mashhad among distinct target populations (64.9%) (17). Such variations could be attributed to diversities in age, culture, place of residence, and disease levels. For example, Dorri et al. (17) chose subjects among people of Mashhad visiting the Imam Reza Shrine, rather than among patients visiting dental clinics. Our reported rate is similar to results obtained in some studies in South America and Thailand (24-26).

The gender, occupation, and education level of the patient significantly affected the OIDP score. The quality of life of women was more affected than that of men. Housewives and unemployed participants reported more complaints, and subjects with lower (elementary school) education levels had more oral health impacts on their quality of life. This occupational and educational distinction could be explained by the fact that most women were housewives and predominantly had a lower education. These findings are consistent with various previous studies assessing the effects of gender or sociodemographic aspects on quality of life. For example, Montero et al. (27) reported that women reported more dysfunctions and dissatisfaction with their quality of life. Two other studies (12,13) found that young students and women were affected more than other groups, indicating that age and gender affect the quality of life. Hugo et al. (28) and Bernabe et al. (29) concluded that occupation and income most affect quality of life, while another study (30) found that race and educational status had prominent effects.

We also observed a relationship between the stated general condition of health and the quality of life. Poor general health conditions trended with a poorer quality of life, although the difference was not significant between the various groups. This finding is consistent with the results of Dorri et al. (17) and Jung et al. (18). The OIDP score displayed a significant relationship with oral health, with higher OIDP scores being attributed to inappropriate oral conditions. Sheiham et al. (8) likewise found that the OIDP score was significantly associated with clinical variables of oral health, such as loose teeth, loss of gingival fibers, and loss of anterior or posterior teeth. Yusuf et al. (20) found that the OIDP score was significantly related to oral health and oral health satisfaction.

Difficulty eating was the most common impact (66.8%) and was predominantly caused by toothache, while going out and shopping were the least affected activities. This result is consistent with the numerous previous studies that have likewise identified eating as the predominant activity impacted by negative oral conditions (8,13,17,18,20,24,31,32). Other highly affected activities in the literature include tooth cleaning (13,20,31,32) and emotional problems (24). Least affected activities in the literature include relaxing, speaking, emotional status, sleeping, social contacts, smiling, and showing teeth (8,13,17,18).

Based on our results, the primary oral needs of most patients are tooth repairing and root canal treatment to relieve patient’s pain. Consideration of this fact could be extremely useful for organizing health policies and insurances.

 

Conclusions

  1. Among the patients examined at Mashhad Faculty of Dentistry and Jahad Clinic, most of them reported that oral and dental disorders impacted their quality of life.
  2. Oral conditions most frequently impacted “eating” and least frequently impacted “going out”.
  3. The most frequent factor impinging upon daily functions was toothache, and the least common factors were tooth shape and size and orthodontic appliance use.
  4. Gender (male vs. female), occupation, and education were significantly associated with quality of life.
  5. Dental insurances should be taken into consideration to facilitate accountability of dental services to general population.
  6. Oral health educations should be considered in general health promotion programs for men and women. Oral health promotion will certainly improve the quality of life of attendees in these programs.

 

References

  1. Gift HC, Redford M. Oral health and the quality of life. Clin Geriatr Med 1992;8:673-83.
  2. Kayser AF. How much reduction of the dental arch is functionally acceptable for the ageing patient? Int Dent J 1990;40:183-8.
  3. Osterberg T, Hedegard B, Sater G. Variation in dental health in 70-year old men and women in Goteborg, Sweden. A cross-sectional epidemiological study including longitudinal and cohort effects. Sweden Dent J 1984;8:29-48.
  4. Schuurs AHB, Ouivenvoorden HJ, Thoden van Velzen SK, Verhange F, Makkes PC. Value of teeth. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1990;18:22-6.
  5. Cushing AM, Sheiham A, Maizels J. Developing socio-dental indicators--the social impact of dental disease. Commun Dent Health 1986;3:3-17.
  6. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health – related quality of life .A conceptual model of patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 1995;273:59-65.
  7. Tsakos G, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Evaluation of a modified version of the index of Oral Impacts on Daily performances (OIDP) in elderly populations in two European countries. Gerodont 2001;18:121-30.
  8. Sheiham A, Steele JG, Marcenes W, Tsakos G, Finch S, Walls AWG. Prevalence of impacts of dental and oral disorders and their effects on eating among older people; a national survey in Great Britain. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:195-203.
  9. Slade GD. Measuring oral health and quality of life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1997.
  10. Tsakos G, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Evaluation of a modified version of the index of Oral Impacts on Daily Performances(OIDP) in elderly populations in two European countries. Gerodont 2001;18:121-30.
  11. Srisilapanan P, Sheiham A. The prevalence of dental impacts on daily performances in older people in Northern Thailand. Gerodont 2001;18:102-8.
  12. Masalu JR, Astrom AN. Applicability of an abbreviated version of the oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP) scale for use among Tanzanian students. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:7-14.
  13. Astrom AN, Okullo I. Validity and reliability of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) frequency scale: a cross-sectional study of adolescents in Uganda. BMC Oral Health 2003;3:5-8.
  14. Astrom AN, Haugejorden O, Skaret E, Trovik TA, Klock KS. Oral Impacts on Daily Performances in Norwegian adults: validity, reliability and prevalence estimates. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:289-96.
  15. Cortes MI, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Impact of traumatic injuries to the permanent teeth on the oral health-related quality of life in 12–14 year-old children. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002;30:193-8.
  16. de Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. The relationship between normative orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality of life. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003,31:426-36.
  17. Dorri M, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of a Persian version of the OIDP index. BMC Oral Health 2007;7:2.
  18. Jung SH, Ryu JI, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. A Korean version of the oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP) scale in elderly populations: validity, reliability and prevalence. Health Qual Life 2008;27:17-9.
  19. Kida IA, Astrom AN, Strand GV, Masalu JR, Tsakos G. Psychometric properties and the prevalence, intensity and causes of oral impacts on daily performance (OIDP) in a population of older Tanzanians. Health Qual Life 2006; 27:56-62.
  20. Yusuf H, Gherunpong S, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of an English version of the child-OIDP index, an Oral health-related quality of life measure for children. Health Qual Life 2006;4:38-42.
  21. Adulyanon S, Vourapukjaru J, Sheiham A. Oral impacts affecting daily performance in a low dental disease Thai population. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996;24:385-9.
  22. Nuttall NM, Steele JG, Pine CM, White D, Pitts NB. The impact of oral health on people in the UK in 1998. Br Dent J 2001;190:121-6.
  23. McGrath C, Bedi R. Population based norming of the UK oral health related quality of life measure (OHQoL-UK). Br Dent J 2002;193:521-4.
  24. Castro RA, Cortes MI, Leao AT, et al. Child-OIDP index in Brazil: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Health Qual Life 2008;6:68-73.
  25. Gherunpong S, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. The prevalence and Severity of oral impacts on daily

 

performances in Thai primary school children.
        Health Qual Life 2004;2:57-63.

  1. Bernabe E, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. Intensity and extent of oral impacts on daily performances by type of self-perceived oral problems. Eur J Oral Sci 2007;115:111-6.
  2. Montero J, Bravo M, Albaladejo A. Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS0-10) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population. Health Qual Life 2008;6:101-6.
  3. Hugo FN, Hilgert JB, De Sousa ML, Cury JA. Oral status and it's association with general quality of life in older independent-living south- Brazilians. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009;37:231-40.
  4. Bernabe E, Sheiham A, Tsakos G, De Olivera CM. The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life in adolescents: a case- control study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:515-20.
  5. Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Locker D, Hunt RJ, Strauss RP, Beck JD. Variations in the social impact of oral conditions among adults in South Australia, Ontario, and North Carolina. J Dent Res 1996;75:1439-50.
  6. Mashato K, Astrom A, David J, Masalu JR. Dental pain, oral impacts and perceived need for dental treatment in Tanzanian school students: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life 2009;7:73-8.
  7. Tubert-Jeanin S, Pegon-Machat E, Gremeau-Richard C, Lecuyer M, Tsakos G. Validation of a French version of child –OIDP index. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:355-62.

 

Corresponding Author:

Amir Moeintaghavi

Department of Periodontics

Faculty of Dentistry

Vakilabad Blvd, Mashhad, Iran

P. O. Box: 91735-984

Tel: +98-511-8829501

Fax: +98-511-8829500

E-mail: Moeentaghavia@mums.ac.ir

  1. Gift HC, Redford M. Oral health and the quality of life. Clin Geriatr Med 1992;8:673-83.
  2. Kayser AF. How much reduction of the dental arch is functionally acceptable for the ageing patient? Int Dent J 1990;40:183-8.
  3. Osterberg T, Hedegard B, Sater G. Variation in dental health in 70-year old men and women in Goteborg, Sweden. A cross-sectional epidemiological study including longitudinal and cohort effects. Sweden Dent J 1984;8:29-48.
  4. Schuurs AHB, Ouivenvoorden HJ, Thoden van Velzen SK, Verhange F, Makkes PC. Value of teeth. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1990;18:22-6.
  5. Cushing AM, Sheiham A, Maizels J. Developing socio-dental indicators--the social impact of dental disease. Commun Dent Health 1986;3:3-17.
  6. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health – related quality of life .A conceptual model of patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 1995;273:59-65.
  7. Tsakos G, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Evaluation of a modified version of the index of Oral Impacts on Daily performances (OIDP) in elderly populations in two European countries. Gerodont 2001;18:121-30.
  8. Sheiham A, Steele JG, Marcenes W, Tsakos G, Finch S, Walls AWG. Prevalence of impacts of dental and oral disorders and their effects on eating among older people; a national survey in Great Britain. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:195-203.
  9. Slade GD. Measuring oral health and quality of life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1997.
  10. Tsakos G, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Evaluation of a modified version of the index of Oral Impacts on Daily Performances(OIDP) in elderly populations in two European countries. Gerodont 2001;18:121-30.
  11. Srisilapanan P, Sheiham A. The prevalence of dental impacts on daily performances in older people in Northern Thailand. Gerodont 2001;18:102-8.
  12. Masalu JR, Astrom AN. Applicability of an abbreviated version of the oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP) scale for use among Tanzanian students. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:7-14.
  13. Astrom AN, Okullo I. Validity and reliability of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) frequency scale: a cross-sectional study of adolescents in Uganda. BMC Oral Health 2003;3:5-8.
  14. Astrom AN, Haugejorden O, Skaret E, Trovik TA, Klock KS. Oral Impacts on Daily Performances in Norwegian adults: validity, reliability and prevalence estimates. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:289-96.
  15. Cortes MI, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Impact of traumatic injuries to the permanent teeth on the oral health-related quality of life in 12–14 year-old children. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002;30:193-8.
  16. de Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. The relationship between normative orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality of life. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003,31:426-36.
  17. Dorri M, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of a Persian version of the OIDP index. BMC Oral Health 2007;7:2.
  18. Jung SH, Ryu JI, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. A Korean version of the oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP) scale in elderly populations: validity, reliability and prevalence. Health Qual Life 2008;27:17-9.
  19. Kida IA, Astrom AN, Strand GV, Masalu JR, Tsakos G. Psychometric properties and the prevalence, intensity and causes of oral impacts on daily performance (OIDP) in a population of older Tanzanians. Health Qual Life 2006; 27:56-62.
  20. Yusuf H, Gherunpong S, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of an English version of the child-OIDP index, an Oral health-related quality of life measure for children. Health Qual Life 2006;4:38-42.
  21. Adulyanon S, Vourapukjaru J, Sheiham A. Oral impacts affecting daily performance in a low dental disease Thai population. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996;24:385-9.
  22. Nuttall NM, Steele JG, Pine CM, White D, Pitts NB. The impact of oral health on people in the UK in 1998. Br Dent J 2001;190:121-6.
  23. McGrath C, Bedi R. Population based norming of the UK oral health related quality of life measure (OHQoL-UK). Br Dent J 2002;193:521-4.
  24. Castro RA, Cortes MI, Leao AT, et al. Child-OIDP index in Brazil: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Health Qual Life 2008;6:68-73.
  25. Gherunpong S, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. The prevalence and Severity of oral impacts on daily
 

performances in Thai primary school children.
        Health Qual Life 2004;2:57-63.

  1. Bernabe E, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. Intensity and extent of oral impacts on daily performances by type of self-perceived oral problems. Eur J Oral Sci 2007;115:111-6.
  2. Montero J, Bravo M, Albaladejo A. Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS0-10) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population. Health Qual Life 2008;6:101-6.
  3. Hugo FN, Hilgert JB, De Sousa ML, Cury JA. Oral status and it's association with general quality of life in older independent-living south- Brazilians. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009;37:231-40.
  4. Bernabe E, Sheiham A, Tsakos G, De Olivera CM. The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life in adolescents: a case- control study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:515-20.
  5. Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Locker D, Hunt RJ, Strauss RP, Beck JD. Variations in the social impact of oral conditions among adults in South Australia, Ontario, and North Carolina. J Dent Res 1996;75:1439-50.
  6. Mashato K, Astrom A, David J, Masalu JR. Dental pain, oral impacts and perceived need for dental treatment in Tanzanian school students: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life 2009;7:73-8.
  7. Tubert-Jeanin S, Pegon-Machat E, Gremeau-Richard C, Lecuyer M, Tsakos G. Validation of a French version of child –OIDP index. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:355-62.