Background: This study compared oral health impacts and QoL among patients with different malocclusion types and a normal population by using self-report questionnaires. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 214 healthy adults were divided into 3 groups: (1) Normal, control group; (2) ORTHO, patients who received orthodontic treatment; and (3) OGS group, patients who received orthognathic surgery (OGS). The timing of measurement were at the initial stage of the orthodontic therapy and before surgery. Two questionnaires and one additional item were used: the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for QoL, the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) for oral health-related QoL (OHRQOL) and one additional item for aesthetic evaluation. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to compare the 3 groups. The effects of 3 malocclusion types, gender, age, and facial asymmetry in the OGS group were also evaluated. Results: The ORTHO and OGS groups had higher negative impacts than did the Normal group in the OHIP-14, but not much difference in the SF-36. The item of aesthetics related to oral health impact was the lowest in the OGS group. The patients in the ORTHO group with a Class II malocclusion were most dissatisfied in the SF-36 and OHIP-14. In the OGS group, the women dissatisfied in the OHIP-14 and the aesthetic. The older patients had higher negative impacts in the OHIP-14 than the younger patients. The patients with facial asymmetry did not suffer higher negative impacts than did the patients with a symmetrical face in the SF-36 and OHIP-14. Conclusions: The majority of the patients who required orthodontics or OGS reported a higher negative impact in the OHIP-14 compared with the normal controls, but not in the SF-36. Class II malocclusion suffered from highest psychological stress and aesthetic sensitivity than the other two subgroups in the ORTHO group.
Liu, B. C. L., Lee, I. C., Lo, L. J., & Ko, E. W. C. (2019). Investigate the oral health impact and quality of life on patients with malocclusion of different treatment needs. Biomedical Journal, 42(6), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.05.009