Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

The factors that influence oral health-related quality of life in 15-year-old children

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201816:19

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0847-5

  • Received: 31 August 2017
  • Accepted: 10 January 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Several hypotheses on factors that influence oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) have been proposed but a consensus has not been reached. This cross-sectional study aimed to analyse the sociodemographic and clinical factors that may influence the OHRQoL of 15-year-old children.

Methods

A representative sample was selected from Hong Kong. Periodontal status and caries were examined according to WHO criteria. Four orthodontic indices were used to assess malocclusion. Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11–14, 37 items) including four domains, namely oral symptoms (OS), functional limitations (FL), emotional well-being (EWB), and social well-being (SWB), was used to measure OHRQoL. Adjusted OR was calculated by ordinal logistic regression.

Results

A total of 364 eligible subjects (186 girls, 178 boys) were recruited. The prevalence of caries was higher in girls than in boys (P = 0.013). Compared with girls, boys tended to have a better experience in the domains of EWB, SWB and the total CPQ (adjusted OR = 0.46, 0.59 and 0.61, respectively). Unhealthy periodontal conditions were more prevalent than caries (92.6% vs. 52.7%); moreover, periodontal conditions with CPI scores of 2 had a negative effect on the domain of SWB and the total CPQ (adjusted OR = 1.76 and 1.71, respectively). Only the most severe malocclusion showed an effect on the domain of FL and the total CPQ (adjusted OR = 1.55 and 2.10, respectively). Little effect of family ecosocial factors and caries was found on CPQ scores.

Conclusion

In this study, gender, periodontal status, and malocclusion showed an effect on OHRQoL after adjusting for potential confounders. Boys had less caries and better OHRQoL than girls did. Unhealthy periodontal conditions led to worse social welfares and OHRQoL. The most severe level of malocclusion caused oral functional limitations, hence worse OHRQoL.

Keywords

  • Oral health-related quality of life
  • Periodontal status
  • Caries
  • Malocclusion
  • Sociodemographic factors

Background

Patient-centred treatment requires clinicians to put efforts not only on physical diseases but also on the improvement of patients’ psychosocial well-beings. Hence health-related quality of life, which measures four broad domains, namely physical health, psychological well-being, social relationships, and environment, has become a research focus in recent years [1]. In dentistry, the concept of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was raised about two decades ago [2].

Currently, several hypotheses on OHRQoL have been proposed. First, health problems may affect quality of life, but such a consequence is not inevitable [3]. For example, an individual who had eating problems due to pain and discomfort would have rated this problem as extremely important at one point of time. However, when this problem was diagnosed as oral cancer, and treated with radiotherapy and/or surgery, the same individual might report the original problem as relatively unimportant [4]. Second, quality of life is a “dynamic construct” that is likely to change overtime [4]. The value attributed to any domain of quality of life may change over the life span [5]. Third, sociodemographic factors may also influence OHRQoL [6, 7]. The nature and magnitude of impacts could vary between populations of different cultural backgrounds [8]. The most frequently investigated factors were gender and family ecosocial factors such as household income and parents’ education [911].

Although many studies have been conducted in this research area, a consensus has not been reached [1117]. This article is a cross-sectional analysis aimed to analyse the clinical and sociodemographic factors that may influence OHRQoL. The sample of this study was randomly selected from 15-year-old students in Hong Kong.

Methods

Measurement instruments

Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11–14) with 37 items was used to assess children’s OHRQoL [1821]. The questionnaire consists of four domains, namely oral symptoms domain (OS, 6 items), functional limitations domain (FL, 9 items), emotional well-being domain (EWB, 9 items) and social well-being domain (SWB, 13 items). Each item has a 5-point response format ranging from 0 to 4. The item scores of each domain are added together to get a domain score, and the scores of four domains are added together to get the total CPQ score. Higher scores represent poorer OHRQoL [22].

Community Periodontal Index (CPI) and the Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index were used to measure periodontal and caries conditions according to the criteria of WHO [23]. Also, Significant Caries Index (SiC index) was used to classify caries. Individuals are sorted according to their DMFT values; the one third of the population with the highest caries score is selected and the mean DMFT for this subgroup is calculated; this value constitutes the SiC Index [24].

Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON), and Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) were used to assess orthodontic treatment need and complexity [2530].

IOTN includes Dental health component (DHC) and Aesthetic component (AC). DHC has 5 grades (no need to very great need) and the worst occlusal trait is recorded to allocate the grade. AC is comprised of 10 front view photographs, which represents 10 scales of dental attractiveness. The IOTN (DHC) or IOTN (AC) grading can be further categorized into three orthodontic treatment groups (DHC 1–2 or AC 1–4, no need; DHC 3 or AC 5–7, borderline need; DHC 4–5 or AC 8–10, definite need) [31, 32].

The index of DAI is calculated by multiplying the measurements of 10 occlusal traits by their weights; the addition of their products and the addition of a constant number, 13, is the final DAI score. It can be categorized into 4 scales of orthodontic severity and treatment need (≤ 25, normal or minor malocclusion-no treatment need or slight need; 26–30, definite malocclusion-treatment selective; 31–35: severe malocclusion-treatment highly desirable; ≥ 36: very severe (handicapping) malocclusion-treatment mandatory) [28].

ICON is used to evaluate treatment need, treatment outcome and complexity [29]. Its aesthetic score is assessed using the IOTN (AC). Five occlusal trait scores are multiplied by their respective weights and summed to calculate the ICON score. The ICON score can be scaled into 2 categories for treatment need (≤ 43 No; > 43 Yes), and 5 categories for orthodontic complexity (< 29 easy; 29–50, mild; 51–63 moderate; 64–77 difficult; > 77 very difficult). It puts heavy emphasis on aesthetics.

PAR is an estimate of how far a case deviates from normal. The concept is to assign a score to 11 components of occlusal traits that make up a malocclusion. The individual scores are summed together to obtain an overall total, representing the degree a case deviates from normal occlusion. Generally a measure of 10 or less indicates an acceptable alignment and occlusion, and 5 or less suggests an almost ideal occlusion [27].

Study population and data collection

This study was part of a longitudinal study that was planned to follow subjects from age 12 to 18. Cluster randomized trial was used in the original design of the study. The sampling frame was all local secondary schools in Hong Kong (by law all children are required to attend secondary school). A random sample of 45 schools (approximately 10% of all local secondary schools) from 18 districts in Hong Kong, SAR, was selected. Students born between April 1st and May 31st, 1997 were invited to participate in the oral health survey conducted by Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong. The sample of this study was selected from the birth cohort of “children of 1997” [33].

It should be noted that at age 15, not only subjects who were followed up from age 12 came to the survey again, but also some subjects, who did not show up in the 12-year-old survey, were willing to participate in the 15-year-old survey. Therefore, this article is a cross-sectional analysis of all these 15-year-old subjects; the longitudinal analysis from age 12 to 15 will be demonstrated in another article.

Students’ oral health status was examined using an intra-oral disposable mouth mirror with a built-in LED light source. The same trained and calibrated examiner performed the oral examination according to the criteria of WHO [23]. Front-view dental photos were taken by extracting lips using oral retractors to assess IOTN (AC). Dental impressions were collected and the plaster models were sent to OrthoLab (Poland) to make digital models. Software O3DM (version3.8.5 (c) by OrthoLab, Poland) was used to analyse digital models by the same examiner. Reassessments were performed among 10% randomly selected samples after 2 weeks of first assessment to test intra-examiner’s reliability.

Systematic health information, dental treatment history, family ecosocial factors including father’s education, mother’s education, and household income were collected from a self-completed questionnaire. OHRQoL was assessed by CPQ11–14.

Subjects were excluded from the final analysis if they were systemically unhealthy, had orthodontic treatment history, or had oral diseases other than caries, periodontitis and malocclusion.

Ethics, consent and permissions

The ethical approval of this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (UW 09-453). A written consent from parents/primary caregivers and a verbal consent from students were obtained from all participants.

Statistical methods

For intra-examiner reliability tests, kappa values were used for CPI, weighted kappa for IOTN (DHC) and IOTN (AC), and Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for DAI score, ICON score, and DMFT.

Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyse whether there was a difference of oral health status between girls and boys; independent samples t test was used to detect the difference of mean DMFT.

The effects of sociodemographic and clinical factors on OHRQoL were analysed with parameters set as follows:
  1. 1.

    Dependent variables: for bivariate analyses, dependent variables were set as the scores of OS, FL, EWB, SWB and total CPQ; for ordinal regression, dependent variables were set by grouping these scores into four ranks with quartile values as cut-off points.

     
  2. 2.

    Independent variables: gender, father’s education (primary school graduate or below; secondary school, post-secondary or above), mother’s education (primary school graduate or below; secondary school, post-secondary or above), household income (below HK$10000, HK$10001-HK$20000, HK$20001-HK$30000, HK$30001-HK$40000, HK$40001 or above), periodontal status (CPI score < 2, CPI score = 2), caries experience (DMFT < SiC Index value, DMFT > = SiC Index value), and orthodontic treatment need (measured by IOTN, DAI, ICON and PAR).

     
  3. 3.

    Bivariate analyses: for parametric tests, comparison between two samples used the independent samples t test, others used the one-way ANOVA; for nonparametric tests, comparison between two samples used the Mann-Whitney U test, others used the Kruskal-Wallis H test.

     
  4. 4.

    Multivariate analyses: ordinal regression (link function: logit; model: main effects) was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (OR). The statistical software package SPSS (version 22, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for ordinal regression (procedure: Analyse-Regression-Ordinal Regression). To avoid interaction effect, orthodontic treatment needs measured by different orthodontic indices were entered into regression separately. To calculate adjusted OR, malocclusion was adjusted for gender, father’s education level, mother’s education level, household income, periodontal status, and caries experience; while gender, socioeconomic status, periodontal status and caries experience were adjusted for malocclusion measured by PAR and the other variables in ordinal regression.

     

Results

A total of 436 subjects participated in the 15-year-old survey; 364 of them (186 girls, 178 boys) were eligible for this study. Of the 73 subjects who were excluded from this study, 8 were systemically unhealthy; 65 were with orthodontic history or without oral impressions. Of the 364 eligible subjects, 331 (172 girls and 159 boys) were followed up from age 12.

Kappa value for CPI was 0.79; weighted kappa for IOTN (DHC) and IOTN (AC) were 0.92 and 0.79; ICC for DAI score, ICON score and DMFT were 0.82, 0.82 and 0.99.

Missing data only existed in some questions of family information. Around 30 subjects had missing data. The tackling method was as follows: if the missing data were available at age 12, the corresponding data were used in this study. As such, only 3 subjects had missing data in one or two questions, which were filled with the mode of the item data.

Table 1 presents the oral health status of subjects. No differences were found between girls and boys, except for caries. The prevalence of caries was higher in girls than in boys (P = 0.013). In this 15-year-old cohort, the mean DMFT (SD) was 1.70 (2.38) and the SiC index value (SD) was 4.48 (2.24). Unhealthy periodontal conditions were more prevalent than caries (92.6% vs. 52.7%). The prevalence of orthodontic treatment need was 46.7% measured by IOTN (DHC), 20.3% by IOTN (AC), 58.0% by DAI, 33.8% by ICON, and 48.4% by PAR.
Table 1

Profile of 15-year-old participants

 

Female

Male

Total

P

 

N

Percentage

N

Percentage

N

Percentage

IOTN (DHC) treatment need

 No need

88

47.3%

106

59.6%

194

53.3%

0.052

 Borderline need

48

25.8%

30

16.9%

78

21.4%

 Definite need

50

26.9%

42

23.6%

92

25.3%

IOTN (AC) treatment need

 No need

148

79.6%

142

79.8%

290

79.7%

0.850

 Borderline need

23

12.4%

27

15.2%

50

13.7%

 Definite need

15

8.1%

9

5.1%

24

6.6%

DAI severity and treatment need

 Normal or minor malocclusion-no treatment need or slight need

78

41.9%

75

42.1%

153

42.0%

0.877

 Definite malocclusion-treatment selective

55

29.6%

56

31.5%

111

30.5%

 Severe malocclusion-treatment highly desirable

36

19.4%

29

16.3%

65

17.9%

 Very severe (handicapping) malocclusion-treatment mandatory

17

9.1%

18

10.1%

35

9.6%

ICON treatment need

 No

117

62.9%

124

69.7%

241

66.2%

0.173

 Yes

69

37.1%

54

30.3%

123

33.8%

ICON complexity

 Easy

52

28.0%

51

28.7%

103

28.3%

0.730

 Mild

95

51.1%

93

52.2%

188

51.6%

 Moderate

19

10.2%

15

8.4%

34

9.3%

 Difficult

9

4.8%

12

6.7%

21

5.8%

 Very difficult

11

5.9%

7

3.9%

18

4.9%

PAR

 Almost ideal occlusion

37

19.9%

32

18.0%

69

19.0%

0.428

 Acceptable occlusion

53

28.5%

66

37.1%

119

32.7%

 Malocclusion

96

51.6%

80

44.9%

176

48.4%

Periodontal status

 CPI score = 0

17

9.1%

10

5.6%

27

7.4%

0.201

 CPI score > 0

169

90.9%

168

94.4%

337

92.6%

 CPI score < 2

35

18.8%

26

14.6%

61

16.8%

0.283

 CPI score = 2

151

81.2%

152

85.4%

303

83.2%

Caries experience

 < SiC Index value

158

84.9%

159

89.3%

317

87.1%

0.214

 > =SiC Index value

28

15.1%

19

10.7%

47

12.9%

 DMFT = 0

76

40.9%

96

53.9%

172

47.3%

0.013*

 DMFT> 0

110

59.1%

82

46.1%

192

52.7%

DMFT

 

Mean(SD)

 

Mean(SD)

 

Mean(SD)

 
 

186

2.01 (2.57)

178

1.38 (2.12)

364

1.70 (2.38)

0.012*

P: comparison for DMFT used the independent samples t test; others used the Mann-Whitney U test

IOTN index of orthodontic treatment need, DHC dental health component, AC aesthetic component, ICON index of complexity, outcome and need, PAR peer assessment rating, CPI community periodontal index, DMFT decayed, missing and filled teeth, SiC Index significant caries index; SiC index value (SD) was 4.48 (2.24)

*: P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

Table 2 presents the results of bivariate analyses. Compared with girls, boys had lower scores in the domains of EWB, SWB and the total CPQ. Mother’s education showed some effect on the domain of OS. Subjects with unhealthy periodontal conditions had higher scores in all domains of CPQ11–14; however, statistical analysis showed that only subjects with CPI scores of 2 had higher scores in the domain of SWB and the total CPQ (P < 0.05). Subjects with a higher caries experience had higher CPQ scores in all domains of CPQ11–14, except for FL; nevertheless, no significant result was detected by statistical analysis. When malocclusion was classified into two groups by PAR, subjects with malocclusion had higher domains and total CPQ scores than those without malocclusion. In addition, mainly PAR detected significant results; the effects mainly existed in the domains of FL, SWB, and the total CPQ (P < 0.05, Table 2).
Table 2

Bivariate analysis between the factors and the CPQ11–14

  

OS

FL

EWB

SWB

CPQ11–14 total score

 
 

N

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

P

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

P

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

P

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

P

Mean (SD)

Median (IQR)

P

Gender

 F

186

7.35(2.87)

7.00(4)

0.168

5.03(4.02)

4.50(5)

0.202

6.38(5.70)

5.00(8)

0.000**

3.73(4.63)

2.00(5)

0.008**

22.48(14.15)

19.00(18)

0.022*

 M

178

7.70(3.05)

8.00(5)

4.49(3.81)

4.00(6)

4.48(5.35)

2.00(8)

3.14(4.72)

1.00(4)

19.81(14.03)

16.00(18)

 Total

364

7.52(2.96)

8.00(5)

 

4.77(3.92)

4.00(5)

 

5.45(5.61)

3.50(8)

 

3.44(4.68)

2.00(4)

 

21.18(14.13)

18.00(19)

 

Father’s education

 Primary school graduate or below

58

7.76(3.02)

8.00(4)

0.843

5.19(4.17)

3.00(6)

0.704

6.86(6.51)

5.00(10)

0.258

4.19(5.30)

2.00(6)

0.335

24.00(15.46)

19.50(22)

0.293

 Secondary school graduate or below

239

7.48(2.85)

8.00(3)

4.76(3.96)

4.00(6)

5.26(5.51)

3.00(8)

3.33(4.45)

2.00(4)

20.82(13.92)

17.00(18)

 College graduate or above

67

7.46(3.31)

8.00(5)

4.45(3.59)

4.00(4)

4.91(4.95)

3.00(7)

3.16(4.91)

1.00(5)

19.99(13.58)

16.00(17)

Mother’s education

 Primary school graduate or below

57

8.07(3.03)

8.00(5)

0.035*

4.82(3.93)

4.00(6)

0.509

6.40(6.08)

5.00(9)

0.356

3.54(4.63)

2.00(5)

0.675

22.84(14.33)

18.00(20)

0.270

 Secondary school graduate or below

264

7.33(2.90)

7.00(4)

4.70(3.91)

4.00(6)

5.27(5.57)

3.00(8)

3.48(4.85)

2.00(4)

20.78(14.34)

17.00(19)

 College graduate or above

43

7.98(3.18)

8.00(6)

5.09(4.09)

4.00(5)

5.30(5.15)

3.00(8)

3.02(3.65)

2.00(5)

21.40(12.64)

19.00(16)

Household income

 Below HK$10,000

52

8.27(2.71)

8.00(4)

0.057

4.96(4.43)

3.00(7)

0.395

5.73(5.80)

4.00(8)

0.865

3.42(4.77)

1.00(4)

0.932

22.38(15.07)

18.00(20)

0.880

 HK$10,001-HK$20,000

149

7.20(2.92)

7.00(4)

4.38(3.63)

4.00(5)

5.72(5.70)

4.00(8)

3.36(4.15)

2.00(4)

20.65(13.35)

17.00(18)

 HK$20,001-HK$30,000

61

7.34(3.02)

7.00(5)

4.70(4.04)

4.00(5)

5.48(6.11)

3.00(10)

3.48(4.96)

1.00(5)

21.00(15.60)

18.00(20)

 HK$30,001-HK$40,000

39

8.51(2.99)

9.00(5)

5.69(3.83)

6.00(7)

5.18(5.70)

2.00(8)

3.64(5.71)

1.00(5)

23.03(15.25)

16.00(18)

 Over HK$40,001

63

7.21(3.04)

7.00(4)

5.03(4.08)

4.00(6)

4.71(4.68)

3.00(9)

3.49(4.94)

2.00(5)

20.44(13.23)

19.00(18)

Periodontal status

 CPI score = 0

27

6.63(2.75)

6.00(4)

0.095

4.26(4.48)

2.00(6)

0.247

4.85(5.97)

3.00(5)

0.533

2.11(2.74)

1.00(4)

0.285

17.85(12.28)

14.00(17)

0.209

 CPI score > 0

337

7.59(2.97)

8.00(5)

4.81(3.88)

4.00(5)

5.50(5.58)

4.00(8)

3.55(4.79)

2.00(5)

21.44(14.25)

18.00(18)

 CPI score < 2

61

6.92(2.74)

6.00(4)

0.083

4.43(4.16)

3.00(5)

0.287

4.34(5.04)

3.00(7)

0.114

2.20(3.65)

1.00(3)

0.024*

17.89(11.68)

15.00(16)

0.064

 CPI score = 2

303

7.64(2.99)

8.00(4)

4.84(3.88)

4.00(5)

5.67(5.69)

4.00(8)

3.69(4.83)

2.00(5)

21.84(14.50)

18.00(19)

Caries experience

 < SiC Index value

317

7.51(3.00)

8.00(5)

0.814

4.84(3.93)

4.00(5)

0.349

5.42(5.60)

3.00(8)

0.968

3.38(4.55)

2.00(4)

0.590

21.14(13.99)

18.00(19)

0.968

 > =SiC Index value

47

7.60(2.72)

8.00(4)

4.32(3.89)

3.00(5)

5.64(5.73)

4.00(9)

3.85(5.53)

2.00(5)

21.40(15.24)

16.00(17)

IOTN (DHC) treatment need

 No need

194

7.69(3.02)

8.00(5)

0.209

4.49(4.05)

3.00(6)

0.146

5.39(5.59)

4.00(9)

0.900

3.31(4.69)

1.00(4)

0.234

20.88(14.33)

18.00(18)

0.847

 Borderline need

78

7.06(2.84)

7.00(4)

5.19(3.94)

4.00(5)

5.56(5.87)

3.50(9)

3.99(4.95)

2.00(5)

21.81(14.71)

15.00(22)

 Definite need

92

7.55(2.94)

7.00(4)

4.99(3.62)

4.50(6)

5.48(5.47)

3.00(9)

3.25(4.41)

1.50(4)

21.27(13.33)

17.50(18)

IOTN (AC) treatment need

 No need

290

7.39(2.95)

7.00(4)

0.203

4.70(3.97)

4.00(6)

0.301

5.26(5.53)

3.00(8)

0.468

3.41(4.64)

1.00(5)

0.575

20.76(14.04)

17.00(18)

0.388

 Borderline need

50

8.06(2.96)

8.00(4)

4.80(4.00)

4.00(5)

6.00(5.91)

4.00(10)

3.74(5.17)

2.00(4)

22.60(15.42)

18.50(21)

 Definite need

24

8.00(3.09)

8.50(6)

5.54(3.20)

5.00(5)

6.54(5.95)

5.00(12)

3.17(4.26)

2.00(4)

23.25(12.65)

19.00(20)

DAI

 Normal or minor malocclusion-no treatment need or slight need

153

7.31(2.98)

7.00(5)

0.049*

4.35(3.80)

4.00(6)

0.176

5.07(5.17)

3.00(9)

0.214

3.17(4.31)

1.00(4)

0.088

19.91(13.29)

18.00(18)

0.060

 Definite malocclusion-treatment selective

111

7.89(3.20)

8.00(4)

5.06(4.15)

4.00(6)

5.79(6.01)

4.00(9)

4.11(5.36)

2.00(6)

22.86(15.74)

18.00(22)

 Severe malocclusion-treatment highly desirable

65

6.94(2.67)

6.00(4)

4.78(3.93)

3.00(6)

5.02(5.95)

3.00(7)

2.66(4.13)

1.00(4)

19.40(13.56)

14.00(17)

 Very severe (handicapping) malocclusion-treatment mandatory

35

8.31(2.37)

8.00(4)

5.63(3.61)

5.00(5)

6.80(5.43)

7.00(9)

3.94(4.72)

2.00(4)

24.69(12.64)

23.00(17)

ICON treatment need

 No

241

7.40(3.05)

7.00(5)

0.319

4.55(3.97)

4.00(6)

0.061

5.29(5.62)

3.00(9)

0.291

3.51(4.75)

2.00(5)

0.519

20.74(14.42)

17.00(19)

0.207

 Yes

123

7.76(2.77)

8.00(4)

5.20(3.81)

5.00(6)

5.76(5.58)

4.00(9)

3.31(4.56)

2.00(4)

22.02(13.57)

18.00(19)

ICON complexity

 Easy

103

7.41(3.11)

8.00(5)

0.329

3.94(3.66)

3.00(5)

0.079

4.70(5.26)

2.00(8)

0.300

2.78(4.12)

1.00(4)

0.306

18.83(13.17)

16.00(18)

0.213

 Mild

188

7.36(2.89)

7.00(4)

5.06(4.05)

4.00(6)

5.49(5.58)

4.00(8)

3.89(5.11)

2.00(5)

21.80(14.60)

18.00(18)

 Moderate

34

7.97(3.02)

8.00(4)

5.06(4.61)

4.00(9)

6.00(6.36)

3.00(11)

2.88(4.03)

1.00(4)

21.91(15.51)

15.50(26)

 Difficult

21

8.52(2.70)

9.00(4)

5.00(2.57)

5.00(4)

6.71(5.64)

5.00(9)

3.19(3.99)

2.00(5)

23.43(11.95)

20.00(16)

 Very difficult

18

7.78(3.04)

8.50(5)

5.61(3.53)

5.00(5)

6.78(6.25)

6.00(12)

3.89(4.68)

2.00(3)

24.06(13.81)

21.50(26)

PAR

 Almost ideal or Acceptable occlusion

188

7.38(3.15)

7.00(5)

0.397

4.30(3.87)

3.00(5)

0.010*

5.08(5.60)

3.00(9)

0.078

3.16(4.55)

1.00(4)

0.049*

19.93(14.19)

17.00(18)

0.031*

 Malocclusion

176

7.66(2.75)

8.00(4)

5.27(3.93)

4.50(6)

5.84(5.60)

4.00(9)

3.73(4.81)

2.00(5)

22.51(13.99)

18.00(18)

Nonparametric tests: comparison between two samples used the Mann-Whitney U test; others used the Kruskal-Wallis H test; *: P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

IOTN index of orthodontic treatment need, DHC dental health component, AC aesthetic component, ICON index of complexity, outcome and need, PAR peer assessment rating, CPI community periodontal index, DMFT decayed, missing and filled teeth

SiC Index significant caries index, OS oral symptoms domain, FL functional limitations domain, EWB emotional well-being, SWB social well-being, CPQ child perceptions questionnaire, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range

Table 3 presents the results of ordinal regression. The results of gender, family ecosocial factors, periodontal status and caries were almost the same with the bivariate analyses. Compared with girls, boys tended to have a better experience in the domains of EWB, SWB, and the total CPQ (adjusted OR = 0.46, 0.59 and 0.61, respectively). Take the total CPQ for example. Boys had 0.61 times the likelihood of having a higher rank when compared with girls (P = 0.011). Little effect of family ecosocial factors and caries was found by regression analysis. As for periodontal status, CPI scores of 2 had a negative effect on the domain of SWB and the total CPQ (adjusted OR = 1.76 and 1.71, respectively). A more severe level of malocclusion was associated with a higher likelihood of having a higher rank in all domains of CPQ11–14. However, only the domain of FL and the total CPQ were affected by the most severe malocclusion; mainly PAR and DAI detected the significant effect. For example, when compared with “the no/minor” malocclusion group measured by DAI, only “the very severe” malocclusion was associated with a higher likelihood of having a higher rank in the total CPQ after adjusting the effects of other factors (adjusted OR = 2.10, P = 0.032).
Table 3

Ordinal regression of associations between the factors and the CPQ11–14

 

OS

FL

EWB

SWB

CPQ11–14

 

Adjusted OR (95%CI)

P

Adjusted OR (95%CI)

P

Adjusted OR (95%CI)

P

Adjusted OR (95%CI)

P

Adjusted OR (95%CI)

P

Sociodemographic status

 Gender

  Fa

          

  M

1.43 (0.97, 2.10)

0.069

0.76 (0.52, 1.12)

0.172

0.46 (0.31, 0.67)

0.000**

0.59 (0.40, 0.87)

0.008**

0.61 (0.41, 0.89)

0.011*

 Father’s education

  Primary school graduate or belowa

          

  Secondary school graduate or below

1.01 (0.56, 1.82)

0.963

0.85 (0.47, 1.52)

0.582

0.89 (0.50, 1.60)

0.694

0.81 (0.45, 1.45)

0.477

0.70 (0.39, 1.26)

0.234

  College graduate or above

0.75 (0.35, 1.64)

0.476

0.57 (0.26, 1.25)

0.161

0.97 (0.45, 2.11)

0.940

0.58 (0.26, 1.27)

0.170

0.52 (0.24, 1.14)

0.101

 Mother’s education

  Primary school graduate or belowa

          

  Secondary school graduate or below

0.64 (0.36, 1.15)

0.137

0.86 (0.48, 1.54)

0.610

0.88 (0.49, 1.58)

0.666

0.88 (0.49, 1.58)

0.666

0.90 (0.50, 1.61)

0.723

  College graduate or above

1.46 (0.60, 3.55)

0.407

1.10 (0.45, 2.69)

0.836

0.91 (0.37, 2.22)

0.833

1.35 (0.55, 3.31)

0.510

1.41 (0.58, 3.42)

0.451

 Household income

  Below HK$10,000a

          

  HK$10,001-HK$20,000

0.65 (0.36, 1.17)

0.151

1.03 (0.57, 1.84)

0.934

1.14 (0.64, 2.05)

0.659

1.28 (0.71, 2.31)

0.403

0.95 (0.53, 1.69)

0.855

  HK$20,001-HK$30,000

0.66 (0.33, 1.32)

0.241

1.06 (0.53, 2.12)

0.878

1.04 (0.52, 2.09)

0.906

1.29 (0.64, 2.60)

0.474

1.06 (0.53, 2.11)

0.879

  HK$30,001-HK$40,000

1.34 (0.62, 2.88)

0.463

2.37 (1.09, 5.16)

0.030*

0.93 (0.43, 2.03)

0.861

1.10 (0.50, 2.39)

0.818

1.30 (0.60, 2.81)

0.501

  Over HK$40,001

0.61 (0.29, 1.31)

0.204

1.75 (0.82, 3.76)

0.150

1.04 (0.49, 2.23)

0.921

1.37 (0.64, 2.94)

0.421

1.12 (0.53, 2.39)

0.763

Periodontal and caries status

 Periodontal status

  CPI score < 2a

          

  CPI score = 2

1.34 (0.80, 2.24)

0.261

1.26 (0.76, 2.11)

0.372

1.48 (0.89, 2.48)

0.132

1.76 (1.05, 2.96)

0.033*

1.71 (1.03, 2.85)

0.038*

 Caries experience

  < SiC Index valuea

          

  > =SiC Index value

1.05 (0.60, 1.85)

0.864

0.63 (0.35, 1.12)

0.112

0.79 (0.45, 1.40)

0.425

1.17 (0.66, 2.06)

0.585

0.95 (0.54, 1.66)

0.850

Malocclusion

 IOTN (DHC) treatment need

  No needa

          

  Borderline need

0.60 (0.37, 0.99)

0.047*

1.28 (0.78, 2.09)

0.327

1.04 (0.63, 1.70)

0.888

1.45 (0.88, 2.37)

0.142

0.97 (0.60, 1.58)

0.905

  Definite need

1.03 (0.66, 1.63)

0.887

1.31 (0.83, 2.06)

0.250

1.07 (0.68, 1.68)

0.778

1.15 (0.73, 1.81)

0.556

1.08 (0.69, 1.69)

0.744

 IOTN (AC) treatment need

  No needa

  Borderline need

1.60 (0.92, 2.78)

0.096

1.00 (0.57, 1.73)

0.987

1.45 (0.84, 2.53)

0.186

1.31 (0.76, 2.29)

0.333

1.32 (0.76, 2.29)

0.321

  Definite need

1.66 (0.77, 3.56)

0.197

1.88 (0.87, 4.06)

0.107

1.44 (0.67, 3.11)

0.348

0.98 (0.45, 2.11)

0.955

1.34 (0.62, 2.88)

0.452

 DAI severity and treatment need

  Normal or minor malocclusion-no treatment need or slight needa

          

  Definite malocclusion-treatment selective

1.28 (0.82, 2.01)

0.281

1.40 (0.89, 2.21)

0.141

1.29 (0.82, 2.03)

0.265

1.54 (0.98, 2.43)

0.060

1.34 (0.86, 2.10)

0.199

  Severe malocclusion-treatment highly desirable

0.82 (0.48, 1.40)

0.462

1.05 (0.61, 1.80)

0.859

0.87 (0.51, 1.50)

0.623

0.68 (0.39, 1.17)

0.162

0.76 (0.45, 1.30)

0.316

  Very severe (handicapping) malocclusion-treatment mandatory

1.62 (0.83, 3.19)

0.159

1.93 (0.98, 3.79)

0.057

1.85 (0.94, 3.63)

0.076

1.47 (0.75, 2.89)

0.263

2.10 (1.06, 4.13)

0.032*

 ICON treatment need

  Noa

          

  Yes

1.23 (0.82, 1.83)

0.318

1.40 (0.94, 2.09)

0.101

1.22 (0.82, 1.82)

0.329

1.10 (0.74, 1.65)

0.639

1.21 (0.81, 1.81)

0.343

 ICON complexity

  Easya

          

  Mild

0.77 (0.50, 1.20)

0.249

1.63 (1.04, 2.54)

0.033*

1.44 (0.92, 2.25)

0.106

1.71 (1.09, 2.67)

0.020*

1.52 (0.97, 2.36)

0.065

  Moderate

1.32 (0.65, 2.69)

0.443

1.38 (0.68, 2.82)

0.375

1.42 (0.70, 2.91)

0.333

1.38 (0.67, 2.82)

0.382

1.54 (0.76, 3.13)

0.232

  Difficult

1.59 (0.67, 3.78)

0.294

2.08 (0.87, 4.96)

0.101

2.61 (1.09, 6.27)

0.031*

1.56 (0.65, 3.73)

0.315

2.16 (0.91, 5.13)

0.082

  Very difficult

1.35 (0.54, 3.39)

0.523

2.71 (1.07, 6.86)

0.035*

2.00 (0.79, 5.05)

0.141

1.94 (0.77, 4.90)

0.160

1.90 (0.76, 4.77)

0.172

 PAR score range

  Almost ideal or Acceptable occlusion a

          

  Malocclusion

1.15 (0.79, 1.69)

0.457

1.55 (1.06, 2.28)

0.023*

1.38 (0.94, 2.01)

0.099

1.41 (0.96, 2.06)

0.078

1.35 (0.92, 1.97)

0.121

Statistical method: Ordinal regression (link function: logit; model: main effects), each orthodontic index adopted one separate ordinal regression; dependent variable: CPQ scores classified into four groups with cut-off points as quartile (1: scores < = first quartile; 2: first quartile < scores < = second quartile; 3: second quartile < scores < = third quartile; 4: scores > third quartile); a: reference group; *: P < 0.05. **: P < 0.01

N: sample size; adjusted OR: malocclusions adjusted for gender, father’s education level (primary school graduate or below; secondary school, post-secondary or above), mother’s education level (levels set as father’s education), household income (Below HK$10000, HK$10001-HK$20000, HK$20001-HK$30000, HK$30001-HK$40000, HK$40001 or above), caries experience (DMFT < SiC Index value, DMFT > = SiC Index value), and periodontal status (CPI score < 2, CPI score = 2); gender, socioeconomic status, periodontal and caries status adjusted for the previous variables and malocclusion measured by PAR (almost ideal occlusion, acceptable occlusion, malocclusion)

IOTN index of orthodontic treatment need, DHC dental health component, AC aesthetic component, ICON index of complexity, outcome and need, PAR peer assessment rating; CPI community periodontal index, DMFT decayed, missing and filled teeth, SiC Index significant caries index, OS oral symptoms domain, FL functional limitations domain, EWB emotional well-being domain, SWB social well-being domain, CPQ child perceptions questionnaire, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval

Discussion

This cross-sectional study analysed the influence factors of OHRQoL based on a representative sample of 15-year-old children. The prevalence of caries was higher in girls than in boys. Gender, periodontal status and malocclusion, but not family ecosocial factors and caries, could have an effect on OHRQoL. Boys might be more likely to have a better experience in the domains of EWB, SWB and the total CPQ. Unhealthy periodontal conditions could have a worse effect on SWB and the total CPQ. Only the most severe level of malocclusion could have a significant effect on FL and the total CPQ.

There were some differences when comparing the results at age 15 with those at age 12 [34]. First, the oral health status of girls was not different from boys at age 12; while girls had more caries than boys at age 15. Additionally, boys might have a worse experience in the domain of OS but a better experience in EWB at age 12; while boys might have better experiences in EWB, SWB and total CPQ at age 15. This indicated that boys had more positive experiences of OHRQoL than girls did. Second, at age 12, household income did not show an effect on OHRQoL after correcting other factors. Mother’s education could have a positive effect, while father’s education could have a negative effect on children’s OHRQoL. However, at age 15, these family factors showed little effect on OHRQoL. These results suggested subjects at different age may have different experiences of OHRQoL, which supported the hypothesis that quality of life is a “dynamic construct” that is likely to change with age [4]. Therefore, age should be considered as a predictor of OHRQoL, and the cut-off points of age periods should be investigated. It was suggested that subjects’ OHRQoL was less likely to be impacted at age 15–18 years than at age 12–15 years; the influence of age was further reduced and became stable above 18 years old [35]. However, these results were only from cross-sectional studies. To date no longitudinal study has been conducted to follow subjects from 12 to 18 years old.

Unhealthy periodontal conditions were more prevalent than caries in both this study and the study at age 12. At age 12 the effect of unhealthy periodontal conditions was detected on the domain of EWB and the total CPQ, while at age 15 the effect was on SWB and the total CPQ. A cross-sectional study from Brazil with a sample of 286 schoolchildren of 12 years old also reported that the presence of bleeding had an impact on the domains of EWB and SWB of CPQ11–14 [9]. However, when 170 children were followed from age 12 to 15, the presence of bleeding showed no impact on OHRQoL [36].

Some studies reported caries had an impact on OHRQoL [36, 37], while other studies denied it [9, 38]. In this study, high caries experience showed no effect on OHRQoL at age 15. These results seemed to support the hypothesis that health problems may affect quality of life, but such a consequence is not inevitable [3]. The possible explanation is that Hong Kong is an economically developed area with mature preventive and treatment conditions for caries; thus the symptoms of caries are not likely to hazard children’s OHRQoL.

Many studies reported the negative impact of untreated malocclusion on CPQ11–14 scores [9, 3941]; nevertheless, there are also studies reporting malocclusion had no impact on CPQ11–14 scores [42, 43]. In this study, malocclusion showed an impact on all domains of CPQ11–14 except for OS at age 12; while it only showed an impact on the domain of FL and the total CPQ11–14 at age 15; both studies showed that only severe malocclusions had effects on OHRQoL. A study from Brazil reported that orthodontic treatment need had a strong negative effect on the domain of FL in 12-year-old children [9]. Another study from Saudi Arabia also showed only children with very severe (handicapping) malocclusion had significantly higher domain and total CPQ11–14 scores than all the other groups of 11 to 14 years old children [40].

The results generated by orthodontic indices were different between the two studies, too. At age 12, all indices detected the effects of malocclusion on some domains of CPQ11–14 [34]; while at age 15, only PAR and DAI detected the effect of malocclusion on the domain of FL and the total CPQ. The ability of PAR in detecting the effect of malocclusion on FL was confirmed by both studies at age 12 and age 15. Therefore, PAR may be a good index to judge the effect of malocclusion on subjects’ oral functional limitations, such as breathing through mouth, taking longer to eat a meal, having difficulties to open mouth wide or chew firm foods. PAR is an index that evaluates all anomalies that constitute a malocclusion, while other indices either put great weight on dental esthetics, i.e., the frontal aspects of malocclusion, or is based on the most severe malocclusion trait, like IOTN (DHC) [2528]. Thus the functional limitations caused by malocclusion can be more easily detected by PAR in this study, or by both PAR and IOTN (DHC) in the study of age 12. Other orthodontic indices may be more suitable to assess the effect of malocclusion on subjects’ social lives, as showed in the study of age 12.

CPQ11–14 was designed for children of 11 to 14 years old. In this study, CPQ11–14 was used to measure OHRQoL of 15-year-old children, so that the data of this study could be compared with the data of 12-year-old children. There are other studies using CPQ11–14 to measure OHRQoL of children older than 14 years old [36, 44, 45]. All variables in this study were included into ordinal regression and the main effect models were used to calculate adjusted ORs. This cannot waive the potential of interaction between variables, though in this study the significant results of multivariate analyses were almost the same with the bivariate analyses.

When looking into the disadvantages of this study, four aspects should be considered. First, although this article was based on a representative sample, given that this is only a cross-sectional analysis, the results should be treated with caution. Further longitudinal analysis of this research should provide more definitive evidences. Second, this study was part of a longitudinal study planning to follow subjects from age 12 to 18. Sample size in the original design was calculated [46, 47] based on a previous study [10]. With a lost rate of 30% at each follow-up and the design effect for cluster sampling considered, the sample sizes at ages 12, 15, and 18 should be 237, 166, and 116, respectively [34]. This calculation was for the longitudinal study, not for this cross-sectional study. In addition, the sample size estimation was based on the method of comparing two means. Although the design effect of cluster randomized trials with unequal cluster has been examined, the effect of the statistical methods should still be considered. Third, all variables were included into multi-factor analyses of ordinal regression. Although the single-factor analyses of ordinal regression were also performed during data analysis, which showed almost the same results with the multi-factor analyses, the interpretation of the results should still be treated with caution. Fourth, the sample of this study was only selected in Hong Kong; studies from other regions or countries may disagree with this study because of different geographical, cultural, and economical situations.

Conclusion

The influence factors of OHRQoL were studied based on a representative sample of 15-year-old children. Boys were less likely to have caries and more likely to have better OHRQoL than girls were. Family ecosocial factors and caries showed little effect on OHRQoL. Unhealthy periodontal conditions could lead to worse social well-beings and OHRQoL. The most severe level of malocclusion could cause functional limitations, and hence a worse OHRQoL.

Abbreviations

AC: 

Aesthetic component

CPI: 

Community Periodontal Index

CPQ: 

Child perceptions questionnaire

DAI: 

Dental aesthetic index

DHC: 

Dental health component

DMFT: 

Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth

EWB: 

Emotional well-being

FL: 

Functional limitations domain

ICON: 

Index of complexity, outcome and need

IOTN: 

Index of orthodontic treatment need

OHRQoL: 

Oral health-related quality of life

OR: 

Odds ratio

OS: 

Oral symptoms domain

PAR: 

Peer assessment rating

SD: 

Standard deviation

SE: 

Standard error

SiC index: 

Significant caries index

SWB: 

Social well-being

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. 17115916).

Funding

The Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

LS analysed the data and prepared the manuscript. HMW contributed to the study design, data analysis and manuscript preparation, and acted as the corresponding author. CPM contributed to the study design and the manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval of this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (UW 09-453).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
(2)
Periodontology and Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

References

  1. Power M, Bullinger M, Harper A. The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: tests of the universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychol. 1999;18:495.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennadi D, Reddy C. Oral health related quality of life. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2013;3:1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Locker D, Slade G. Measuring oral health and quality of life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Allison PJ, Locker D, Feine JS. Quality of life: a dynamic construct. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:221–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gift HC, Atchison KA. Oral health, health, and health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1995;33:NS57–77.Google Scholar
  6. Davis P. Culture, inequality and the pattern of dental care in New Zealand. Soc Sci Med A. 1981;15:801–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Allen PF. Assessment of oral health related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Allison P, Locker D, Jokovic A, Slade G. A cross-cultural study of oral health values. J Dent Res. 1999;78:643–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. de Paula JS, Leite ICG, de Almeida AB, Ambrosano GMB, Mialhe FL. The impact of socioenvironmental characteristics on domains of oral health-related quality of life in Brazilian schoolchildren. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhang M. Ph. D. thesis: Changes in children’s oral health related quality of life following orthodontic treatment. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong; 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Piovesan C, Antunes JLF, Guedes RS, Ardenghi TM. Impact of socioeconomic and clinical factors on child oral health-related quality of life (COHRQoL). Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1359–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Steele JG, Sanders AE, Slade GD, Allen PF, Lahti S, Nuttall N, Spencer AJ. How do age and tooth loss affect oral health impacts and quality of life? A study comparing two national samples. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:107–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. McGrath C, Bedi R. The association between dental anxiety and oral health-related quality of life in Britain. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:67–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Needleman I, McGrath C, Floyd P, Biddle A. Impact of oral health on the life quality of periodontal patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:454–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. John MT, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Miglioretti DL, LeResche L, Micheelis W. Demographic factors, denture status and oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:125–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilma de Souza Cortes M, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Impact of traumatic injuries to the permanent teeth on the oral health-related quality of life in 12–14-year-old children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:193–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomson WM, Lawrence HP, Broadbent JM, Poulton R. The impact of xerostomia on oral-health-related quality of life among younger adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:86.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res. 2002;81:459–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bekes K, John MT, Zyriax R, Schaller H-G, Hirsch C. The German version of the child perceptions questionnaire (CPQ-G11-14): translation process, reliability, and validity in the general population. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:165–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wogelius P, Gjorup H, Haubek D, Lopez R, Poulsen S. Development of Danish version of child oral-health-related quality of life questionnaires (CPQ8-10 and CPQ11-14). BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. McGrath C, Pang HN, Lo E, King NM, HÄgg U, Samman N. Translation and evaluation of a Chinese version of the child oral health-related quality of life measure. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:267–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jokovic A, Locker D, Guyatt G. Short forms of the child perceptions questionnaire for 11–14-year-old children (CPQ 11–14): development and initial evaluation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. WHO. Oral health surveys: basic methods. 4th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.Google Scholar
  24. Bratthall D. Introducing the significant caries index together with a proposal for a new global oral health goal for 12-year-olds. Int Dent J. 2000;50:378–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:309–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw W, Richmond S, O'Brien K. The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;107:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Richmond S, Shaw W, O'brien K, Buchanan I, Jones R, Stephens C, Roberts C, Andrews M. The development of the PAR index (peer assessment rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:125–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenny J, Cons NC. Establishing malocclusion severity levels on the dental aesthetic index (DAI) scale. Aust Dent J. 1996;41:43–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod. 2000;27:149–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Cons NC, Kohout FJ, Jenny J. DAI--the dental aesthetic index. Iowa City: College of Dentistry, University of Iowa; 1986.Google Scholar
  31. Lunn H, Richmond S, Mitropoulos C. The use of the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) as a public health tool: a pilot study. Community Dent Health. 1993;10:111–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Richmond S. An introduction to occlusal indices. Manchester: Victoria University of Manchester: Mandent Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  33. Schooling CM, Hui LL, Ho LM, Lam T-H, Leung GM. Cohort profile:‘children of 1997’: a Hong Kong Chinese birth cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;41:611–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sun L, Wong HM, McGrath CP. The factors that influence the oral health-related quality of life in 12-year-old children: baseline study of a longitudinal research. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:155.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun L, Wong HM, McGrath CP. The relationship between the severity of malocclusion and oral health related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2017; In PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Paula JS, Cruz JND, Ramires TG, Ortega EMM, Mialhe FL. Longitudinal impact of clinical and socioenvironmental variables on oral health-related quality of life in adolescents. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Do LG, Spencer A. Oral health-related quality of life of children by dental caries and Fluorosis experience. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67:132–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Locker D. Disparities in oral health-related quality of life in a population of Canadian children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:348–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Do L, Spencer A. Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life questionnaires in a general child population. Community Dent Health. 2008;25:205–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dawoodbhoy I, Delgado-Angulo EK, Bernabé E. Impact of malocclusion on the quality of life of Saudi children. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:1043–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang M, McGrath C, Hägg U. Orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality among children. Community Dent Health. 2009;26:58–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Barbosa TS, Tureli MCM, Gavião MBD. Validity and reliability of the child perceptions questionnaires applied in Brazilian children. BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gururatana O, Baker SR, Robinson PG. Determinants of children's oral-health-related quality of life over time. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014;42:206–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ahuja V. Master thesis: Oral health related quality of life among Iowa adolescents. Iowa City: The University of Iowa; 2013.Google Scholar
  45. Aimee NR, van Wijk AJ, Maltz M, Varjao MM, Mestrinho HD, Carvalho JC. Dental caries, fluorosis, oral health determinants, and quality of life in adolescents. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:1811–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Kerry S. Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1292–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K. What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:204–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement