Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of oral health impact profile for edentulous subjects

Abstract

Purpose The validated translations of the OHIP-EDENT exist in different languages; however, there is no reliable and validated Turkish translation. The present study was conducted to evaluate the reliability and to validate the Oral Health Impact Profile in edentulous subjects translated to Turkish (OHIP-EDENT-T). Materials and Methods The study sample included 104 conventional complete denture wearers (58 women and 46 men, mean age: 61.13 ± 9.43 years). The original English version of OHIP-EDENT was translated into Turkish using a forward-backward method and applied to the subjects. The reliability of the OHIP-EDENT-T was evaluated using internal consistency and the test–retest method. Validity was determined as construct and convergent validity. The construct validity of OHIP-EDENT-T was assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results The Cronbach’s alpha value for OHIP-EDENT-T was 0.890. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.749 for the OHIP-EDENT-T total score, and ICCs for the subscales ranged from 0.630 (95% CI = 0.501-0.823) to 0.859 (95% CI = 0.531-0.897), indicating good to excellent agreement. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value for sampling adequacy was 0.820 and results of Bartlett's sphericity test indicated statistical significance (χ2=1139.767; df=171, p=0.001). This showed that factorial analysis could be applied to the data set. The three-factor structure of the scale explained 81.1% of the observed variance. The agreement of the three-factor solution was further tested with confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit index was found to be acceptable (chi-square fit test=1.449, RMSEA=0.040, GFI=0.94, CFI=0.93). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that OHIP-EDENT-T is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the quality of life of edentulous patients.

Keywords

• Oral-health related quality of life
• OHIP
• OHIP-EDENT
• Edentulous
• Complete denture

References

1. 1. Islas-Granillo H, Borges-Yanez SA, Lucas-Rincon SE, et al. Edentulism risk indicators among Mexican elders 60-year-old and older. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2011;53:258-62. [CrossRef] google scholar
2. 2. Doğan BG, Gökalp S. Tooth loss and edentulism in the Turkish elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012;54:162-6. [CrossRef] google scholar
3. 3. Fiske J, Davis DM, Leung KC, McMillan AS, Scott BJ. The emotional effects of tooth loss in partially dentate people attending prosthodontic clinics in dental schools in England, Scotland and Hong Kong: a preliminary investigation. Int Dent J 2001;51:457-62. [CrossRef] google scholar
4. 4. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res 2011;90:1264-70. [CrossRef] google scholar
5. 5. Oh SH, Kim Y, Park JY, Jung YJ, Kim SK, Park SY. Comparison of fixed implant-supported prostheses, removable implant-supported prostheses, and complete dentures: patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:31-7. [CrossRef] google scholar
6. 6. Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:143-56. [CrossRef] google scholar
7. 7. Armellini DB, Heydecke G, Witter DJ, Creugers NH. Effect of removable partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life in subjects with shortened dental arches: a 2-center cross-sectional study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:524-30. google scholar
8. 8. Bae KH, Kim C, Paik DI, Kim JB. A comparison of oral health related quality of life between complete and partial removable denture-wearing older adults in Korea. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:317-22. [CrossRef] google scholar

9. 9. Heydecke G, Klemetti E, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Relationship between prosthodontic evaluation and patient ratings of mandibular conventional and implant prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:307-12. [CrossRef] google scholar
10. 10. Inoue M, John MT, Tsukasaki H, Furuyama C, Baba K. Denture quality has a minimal effect on health-related quality of life in patients with removable dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:818-26. [CrossRef] google scholar
11. 11. John MT, Reissmann DR, Allen F, Biffar R. The short-term effect of prosthodontic treatment on self-reported oral health status: the use of a single-item questionnaire. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:507-13. google scholar
12. 12. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 1988;5:3-18. google scholar
13. 13. Hegarty AM, McGrath C, Hodgson TA, Porter SR. Patient-centred outcome measures in oral medicine: are they valid and reliable? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:670-4. [CrossRef] google scholar
14. 14. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90. [CrossRef] google scholar
15. 15. Awad M, Al-Shamrany M, Locker D, Allen F, Feine J. Effect of reducing the number of items of the Oral Health Impact Profile on responsiveness, validity and reliability in edentulous populations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2008;36:12-20. google scholar
16. 16. Allen F, Locker D. A modified short version of the Oral Health Impact profile for assessing health related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthdont 2002;15:446-50. google scholar
17. 17. He SL, Wang JH. Reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects. Qual Life Res 2015;24:1011-6. [CrossRef] google scholar
18. 18. Souza RF, Patrocmio L, Pero AC, Marra J, Compagnoni MA. Reliability and validation of a Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for assessing edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:821-26. [CrossRef] google scholar
19. 19. Sato Y, Kaiba Y, Yamaga E, Minakuchi S. Reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects. Gerodontology 2012;29:1033-7. [CrossRef] google scholar
20. 20. Montero J, Macedo C, Lopez-Valverde A, Bravo M. Validation of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-20sp) for Spanish edentulous patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:469-76. [CrossRef] google scholar
21. 21. Shrestha B, Niraula SR, Parajuli PK, Suwal P, Singh RK. Reliability and Validity of a Nepalese Version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous Subjects. J Prosthodont 2018;27:416-20. [CrossRef] google scholar
22. 22. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Sulun T, Bilgin T. A quality-of-life comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:167-73. [CrossRef] google scholar
23. 23. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. Impact of mandibular two-implant retained overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2011;53:233-6. [CrossRef] google scholar
24. 24. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Dayan C, Yabul A, Tuncer N. Comparison of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and bite force between elderly edentulous patients wearing mandibular two implant-supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures after 4 years. Spec Care Dentist 2012;32:136-41. [CrossRef] google scholar
25. 25. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Tuncer N. The influence of maximum bite force on patient satisfaction and quality of life of patients wearing mandibular implant overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:271-7. [CrossRef] google scholar
26. 26. Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Geckili O. The effect of attachment type and implant number on satisfaction and quality of life of mandibular implant-retained overdenture wearers. Gerodontology 2012;29:618-23. [CrossRef] google scholar
27. 27. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995;7:286. [CrossRef] google scholar
28. 28. Zarb GA, Hobkirk J, Eckert S, Jacob R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 13th ed. Mosby/Elsevier, St Louis; 2012. google scholar
29. 29. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334. [CrossRef] google scholar
30. 30. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 1966;19:3-11. [CrossRef] google scholar
31. 31. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology 1950;3:77-85. [CrossRef] google scholar
32. 32. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2007. google scholar
33. 33. Duale JMJ, Patel YA, Wu J, Hyde TP. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Baseline Ohip-Edent Scores. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:17-23. google scholar
34. 34. Komagamine Y, Kanazawa M, Kaiba Y, Sato Y, Minakuchi S, Sasaki Y. Association between self-assessment of complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Rehab 2012;39:847-57. [CrossRef] google scholar
35. 35. Souza RF, Leles CR, Guyatt GH, Pontes CB, Della Vecchia MP, Neves FD. Exploratory factor analysis of the Brazilian OHIP for edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehab 2010;37:202-8. [CrossRef] google scholar
36. 36. Possebon APDR, Faot F, Machado RMM, Nascimento GG, Leite FRM. Exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis of the OHIP-Edent instrument. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:111. [CrossRef] google scholar
37. 37. Locker D, Mscn EW, Jokovic A. What do older adults’ global self-ratings of oral health measure? J Public Health Dent 2005;65:146-52. [CrossRef] google scholar