Sabit fonksiyonel aygıtların bireylerin ağzıyla ilgili yaşam kalitesine etkisi

Year 2022, , 52 - 57, 07.09.2022

Fatma Tekin , Burcu Baloş Tuncer

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.981947

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, sabit fonksiyonel aygıt uygulanan hastaların ve ebeveynlerinin tedavi beklentilerini belirlemek, bu aygıtların bireylerin ağızla ilgili yaşam kalitelerine etkisini değerlendirmek amaçlandı.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Angle sınıf II,1 maloklüzyona sahip, ortodontik tedavide forsus fatigue resistant aygıtı (FFRD) kullanımı planlanmış olan toplam 50 hasta (39 kadın, 11 erkek, ortalama yaş 16.24 yıl) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tedavi öncesi hasta ve ebeveynlerinin tedavi beklentilerine ilişkin bilgiler kaydedildi. Hastaların mevcut ortodontik anomalilerinin genel sağlık durumları üzerindeki algı düzeyini ölçmek üzere tasarlanmış olan Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) anketi braketlemeden 1 ay sonra (T1) ve sabit fonksiyonel aygıtın yerleştirilmesinden 1 ay sonra (T2) alındı. İstatistiksel değerlendirmede dönemler arası fark analizi için Wilcoxon Signed Rank testi, cinsiyetler arası değerlendirme için Mann-Whitney U testi kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Ortodontik tedavi isteğinde hastaların dişlerinin düzgün sıralanmasını önemli bulduğu; ebeveynlerinin ise yüz estetiğini daha önemli bulduğu belirlendi. Cinsiyetler arası karşılaştırmada, kızların mevcut ortodontik problemlerini daha önemli buldukları görüldü (p<0.05). Yaşam kalitesi anket sonuçlarına göre, en yüksek skorlar sırasıyla ‘yemek yemede problem’ ve ‘ağrı hissi’ ile ilgili olup; tedavi dönemleri arasında anlamlı düzeyde fark bulunmadı.
Sonuç: Bu çalışma ile; sabit fonksiyonel aygıt uygulamasının hastaların ağızla ilgili yaşam kalitelerine ciddi düzeyde bir yan etkisi olmadığı vurgulanmıştır. Hastalar, psikolojik ve sosyal etkileşimden ziyade fonksiyonel limitasyonlarla karşılaşabilirler. Bu bulgular; ilgili cihazlarla ilişkili endişelerin giderilmesinde klinisyenlere yardımcı olabilir.

Keywords

Ortodonti, ortodontik aletler, fonksiyonel, yaşam kalitesi

Effects of fixed functional devices on patients’ oral health-related quality of life

Abstract

Objective: To determine treatment expectations of patients and parents, and the initial effects of fixed functional devices on oral health-related quality of life.
Materials and Method: The study comprised 50 patients (39 female, 11 male, mean age 16.24 years) with Angle Class II,1 malocclusion, who were planned to be treated with forsus fatigue resistant device (FFRD). Treatment expectations of the patients and their parents/legal guardians were assessed before the treatment. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) was assessed 1-month after bonding (T1), and repeated 1-month after placement of FFRD (T2). Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon Signed Rank test for the evaluation of the differences in scores between treatment periods and Mann-Whitney U test for the evaluation of gender differences. Results: Main motivation for seeking orthodontic treatment was to improve dental appearance for the patients, and facial esthetics for their parents. Results declared that girls took their orthodontic problems more seriously than boys (p<0.05). The highest mean scores in OHIP-14 were achieved for “difficulty in eating”, and “feeling pain”. No significant difference between treatment periods was noted.
Conclusion: This study highlighted the lack of serious adverse effects of the use of fixed functional devices on patients’ quality of life, and that patients might probably experience problems about physical status, mainly for functional limitations, rather than psychological status and social interactions. The findings may assist clinicians in understanding the concerns about these appliances.

Keywords

Orthodontics, orthodontic appliances, functional, quality of life

References

• Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Quality of life and its importance in orthodontics. J Orthod 2001;28:152-8.
• Ware JE. Measuring patients’views:the optimum outcome measure. BMJ 1993;306:1429-30.
• Gift HC, Redford M. Oral health and the quality of life. Clin Geriatr Med 1992;8:673-83.
• Gift HC, Atchison KA. Oral health, health and health-related quality of life. Med Care 1995;33:NS57-77.
• Feu D, de Oliveira BH, de Oliveira Almeida MA, Kiyak HA, Miguel JA. Oral health-related quality of life and orthodontic treatment seeking. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:152-9.
• Alsumait A, ElSalhy M, Raine K, Cor K, Gokiert R, Al-Mutawa S, et al. Impact of dental health on children’s oral health-realted quality of life: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:98.
• Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral health impact profile. Community Dent Health 1994;11:3-11.
• Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90.
• Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntino V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Bacetti T. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011;81:678-83.
• Bowman AC, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, Preston B, Tabbaa S. Patient experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Angle Orthod 2013;83:437-46.
• Hatch JP, Rugh JD, Clark GM, Keeling SD, Tiner BD, Bays RA. Health-related quality of life following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1998;13:67-77.
• Bennett ME, Phillips CL. Assessment of health-related quality of life for patients with severe skeletal disharmony: a review of the issues. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999;14:65-75.
• Kiyak A. Cultural and psychological influences on treatment demand. Semin Orthod 2000;26:504-14.
• Johal A, Alyaqoobi I, Patel R, Cox S. The impact of orthodontic treatment on quality of life and self-esteem in adult patients. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:233-7.
• Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.
• Uslu O, Akcam MO. Evaluation of long-term satisfaction with orthodontic treatment for skeletal class III individuals. J Oral Sci 2007;49:31-9.
• Tuncer C, Canigur Bavbek N, Balos Tuncer B, Ayhan Bani A, Celik B. How do patients and parents decide for orthodontic treatment-effects of malocclusion, personal expectations, education and media. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;39:392-9.
• Mumcu G, Inanc N, Ergun T, Ikiz K, Gunes M, Islek U, et al. Oral health related quality of life is affected by disease activity in Behçet's disease. Oral Diseases 2006;12:145-51.
• Pabari S, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Assessment of motivation and psychological characteristics of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e263-72.
• Tung AW, Kiyak HA. Psychological influences on the timing of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:29-39.
• Alzoubi EE, Hariri R, Mulligan K, Attard N. An evaluation of oral health-related quality of life in orthodontic patients treated with fixed and twin blocks appliances. J Orthod Sci 2017;6:65-70.
• McKiernan EX, McKiernan F, Jones ML. Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1992;7:187-98.
• Dann CT, Philips C, Broder HL, Tulloch JF. Self-concept, Class II malocclusion, and early treatment. Angle Orthod 1995;65:411-6.
• Ao H, Deng X, She Y, Wen X, Wu Q, Chen F, Gao X. A biopsychosocial-cultural model for understanding oral-health-related quality of life among adolescent orthodontic patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020;18:86.
• Al Omiri MK, Abu Alhaija ES. Factors affecting patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:422-31.
• Zhou Y, Wang Y, Wang X, Voliѐre G, Hu R. The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:66.
• Bernabé E, Sheiham A, Tsakos G, Messias de Oliveira C.The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life in adolescents: a case-control study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:515-20.
• Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U. Changes in oral health-related quality of life during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy: An 18-month prospective longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:214-9.
• Stewart FN, Kerr WJ, Taylor PJ. Appliance wear: the patient’s point of view. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:377-82.
• Chen M, Wang DW, Wu LP. Fixed orthodontic appliance therapy and its impact on oral health-related quality of life in Chinese patients. Angle Orthod 2010;80:49-53.
• Madurantakam P. Fixed or removable function appliances for Class II malocclusions. Evid Based Dent 2016;17:52-3.
• De Felippe O, Silveira A, Viana G, Smith B. Influence of palatal expanders on oral comfort, speech, and mastication. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:48-53.
• Heinig N, Goz G. Clinical application and effects of the Forsus Spring. A study of a new Herbst hybrid. J Orofac Orthop 2001;62:436-50.
• Čirgić E, Kjelberg H, Hansen K. Discomfort, expectations, and experiences during treatment of large overjet with Andresen Activator or Prefabricated Functional Appliance: a questionnaire survey. Acta Odontol Scand 2017;75:166-72.
• Elkordy SA, Fayed MMS, Attia KH, Abouelezz AM. Complications encountered during Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device therapy. Dental Press J Orthod 2020;25:65-72.
• Phuong A, Fagundes NCF, Abtahi S, Roberts MR, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Additional appointments and discomfort associated with compliance-free fixed Class II corrector treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:404-14.