目的:评估临床正畸指标与口腔健康相关生活质量之间的关系,根据社会人口因素进行调整,集中于16岁的唇裂和/或腭裂患者(CL/P)。
方法:122例CL/P患者,代表唇裂(CL),腭裂(CP),单侧/双侧唇腭裂(UCLP/BCLP),加入了国家CLP团队,卑尔根,挪威。
方法:由两名正畸医生评估牙齿数量的横断面研究,颌间矢状关系(ANB角),16岁CL/P患者的牙弓和咬合所有人都完成了数字问卷,包括自我报告的社会人口统计学变量,OHIP-14问卷和牙科美学。使用Pearson卡方检验的交叉表格来确定自我报告的OHRQoL与社会人口统计学和临床指标之间的关联。使用比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)进行多变量分析和二元逻辑回归分析,以评估OHRQoL与经社会人口统计学变量调整的临床指标之间的关联。区域道德委员会授予了道德批准。
结果:与CL和CP患者相比,UCLP和BCLP患者的临床指标较差(p<0.05)。共有80%的患者OHIP-14>0。据报道,心理领域和关节的口服影响最高,而功能领域的影响最小。BCLP患者和颌间关系较差(ANB<0°)的受访者报告对OHRQoL的影响很大(p<0.05)。其他临床指标与性别等社会人口统计学变量之间没有统计学上的显着关联,教育愿望,并报告了居住地。
结论:该研究揭示了严重裂隙诊断之间的关联,缺失的牙齿,牙齿错位,负超喷,可怜的OHRQoL,但是仅在OHRQoL和不良的颌间矢状关系(不利轮廓)之间发现了统计学上的显着关联。为了改善唇裂患者的OHRQoL,需要对口腔保健进行个人随访并确定其优先次序.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between clinical orthodontic indicators and oral-health-related quality of life, adjusted for socio-demographic factors, focusing on 16-year-old patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P).
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two patients with CL/P, representing cleft-lip (CL), cleft-palate (CP), unilateral/bilateral cleft-lip-palate (UCLP/BCLP), enrolled in the national CLP-Team, Bergen, Norway.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study by two orthodontists assessing the number of teeth, intermaxillary sagittal relation (ANB-angle), dental arch and occlusion of 16-year-old patients with CL/P. All completed a digital questionnaire including self-reported socio-demographic variables, OHIP-14 questionnaire and dental aesthetics. Cross-tabulations with Pearson\'s Chi-square test were used to identify associations between self-reported
OHRQoL and socio-demographic and clinical indicators. Multiple variable analyses were conducted with binary logistic regression analysis using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess associations between
OHRQoL and clinical indicators adjusted for socio-demographic variables. Ethical approval was granted by the regional ethics committee.
RESULTS: Patients with UCLP and BCLP had poorer clinical indicators compared to patients with CL and CP (p < 0.05). A total of 80% of the patients had OHIP-14 > 0. The highest oral impact was reported for psychological domains and articulation and the least for functional domains. Respondents with BCLP and those with poor intermaxillary relationships (ANB < 0°) reported a high impact on OHRQoL (p < 0.05). No statistically significant associations between other clinical indicators and socio-demographic variables such as gender, educational aspiration, and place of residence were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed an association between severe cleft diagnosis, missing teeth, misaligned teeth, negative overjet, and poor
OHRQoL, but a statistically significant association was found only between
OHRQoL and poor intermaxillary sagittal relations (unfavorable profile). To improve
OHRQoL among patients with clefts, there is a need for an individual follow-up and prioritization of oral healthcare.