Back to all available

Evaluating the responsiveness of oral health-related quality of life to dental caries treatment: A prospective study in the Saudi population

dentistry

Abstract

Background: Dental caries remains one of the most prevalent chronic diseases globally, significantly affecting oral function, psychosocial well-being, and overall quality of life. Although restorative treatment restores tooth structure and function, limited evidence exists on its impact on oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL) and general well-being among adults in Saudi Arabia. This study evaluated the responsiveness of three validated instruments OHIP-14, OIDP, and WHOQOL-BREF in detecting changes in OHRQoL and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following restorative dental treatment for dental caries. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study was conducted from September 2024 to March 2025 among 269 adult patients with untreated dental caries at Jouf University Dental Clinics, Saudi Arabia. Participants completed Arabic versions of OHIP-14, OIDP, and WHOQOL-BREF at baseline and one-month post treatment. Standardized restorative procedures were performed following clinical protocols. Statistical analyses included paired and independent t-tests, effect size (Cohen’s d), and multiple linear regression to assess discriminant validity, responsiveness, and predictors of change. Results: Significant post treatment improvements were observed across all instruments. Mean OHIP-14 and OIDP scores decreased markedly (20.64 to 6.81 and 7.17 to 0.27, respectively; p < 0.001), while WHOQOL-BREF scores increased significantly (32.53 to 43.03; p < 0.001). All subdomains within the three tools showed improvement. Participants with more severe baseline dental caries exhibited greater responsiveness, particularly in OHIP-14 and WHOQOL-BREF domains. Large effect sizes were observed (OHIP-14 = 2.63, OIDP = 1.93, WHOQOL-BREF = 9.64), confirming high sensitivity to treatment-related changes. Conclusion: Restorative dental treatment for caries significantly enhances both oral and general quality of life among adults. The OHIP-14, OIDP, and WHOQOL-BREF instruments demonstrated strong responsiveness, supporting their utility as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical dental practice. Incorporating PROMs can promote a more holistic, patient-centered approach to oral healthcare.
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].