Back to all available

Oral health-related quality of life in dental therapy patients with diabetes

dentistry
diabetes-and-endocrinology

Abstract

Introduction

In patients with diabetes mellitus, it is important to consider the patient’s perspective in their oral health-related quality of life ( OHRQoL ). OHRQoL can be measured by the 5-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5). Characterizing the OHRQoL score distribution in particular patient population – such as patients with diabetes – provides a framework to put individual patients OHIP-5 value in perspective, influencing clinical decision-making in diagnostic work-up, patient referral, and treatment selection. The aim of this study is to characterize OHRQoL impact and the normative value in using OHIP-5 scores for patients with diabetes seeking care from the dual degree provider of the dental hygienist and dental therapist as they seek preventive and restorative care.    

Methods 

OHIP-5 values were determined in n=338 patients seeking care from dual degree student provider at the School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota. OHIP-5 summary scores were described with an empirical cumulative distribution function. The 90th percentile of scores was considered a threshold, separating a “typical” OHRQoL impact from a “non-typically elevated” impact.   Using individual OHIP-5 items, for the OHRQoL dimension scores Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact mean and standard deivation were describe in bar charts. Frequent OHIP-5 item responses (item response categories “rather often” or “very often” were considered a “non-typically elevated” dimensional impact.   

Results 

The vast majority (90%) of patients seeking care from dental therapists presented an OHIP-5 score of 8 or less , characterizing OHIP-5 scores of 9 to 20 points as “non-typically elevated.”  For the Oral Function “non-typical elevated” dimensional impact occurred in 16% of the patients.   Orofacial Pain impact presented in 13 % of patients; Orofacial Appearance in 21%, and Psychosocial Impact in 6 % .

Conclusions 

To support clinical decision-making, OHIP-5 normative values in patients with diabetes seeking care from dual degree providers in a School of Dentistry setting can be used in treatment planning for preventive and restorative care. The conversion of continuous OHIP-5 scores into a dichotomous form can be used to support the clinical pathways for a patient-centred care delivery model.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].