• Users Online: 511
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-11

Patient-reported outcome measures in orthodontics


1 Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College, Kottayam, Kerala, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Government Dental College, Kottayam, Kerala, India
3 Joint Director of Medical Education, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

Date of Web Publication12-Apr-2019

Correspondence Address:
Elbe Peter
Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College, Kottayam, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/dmr.dmr_34_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Psychological perspective of orthodontic patients due to malocclusion and treatment is less explored in orthodontics until recently. Use of psychometric tools is the method to measure this intangible dimension of malocclusion and treatment. However, many generic and condition-specific tools are available now for this purpose. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will supplement normative outcome measures in the future and will remain an important aspect in patient-centered orthodontic care. In general, with the use of these tools, there has been a conflicting report regarding the effect of malocclusion on a person's Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). However, orthodontic treatment has shown consistently to improve OHRQoL though there is a transient worsening in the initial phases of treatment. The effect of self-esteem and psychosocial well-being as mediators influencing OHRQoL and contextual factors such as socioeconomic status and family support mechanism on QoL need further evidence from long-term studies.

Keywords: Malocclusion-related quality of life, patient-reported outcome measures, psychometric tool, quality of life, questionnaire


How to cite this article:
Peter E, Baiju R M, Varughese JM, Varghese N O. Patient-reported outcome measures in orthodontics. Dent Med Res 2019;7:3-11

How to cite this URL:
Peter E, Baiju R M, Varughese JM, Varghese N O. Patient-reported outcome measures in orthodontics. Dent Med Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 15];7:3-11. Available from: http://www.dmrjournal.org/text.asp?2019/7/1/3/256022




  Introduction Top


The main benefit of orthodontic treatment is improvement in oral function and appearance leading to improvement in psychological and social well-being.[1] Traditionally, malocclusion and treatment need is assessed using normative criteria like classification systems or indices.[2],[3] Both these qualitative and quantitative means ignore patient's psychological status. This dimension to health was added by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1948 after it broadened the definition of “health.” Dentistry and specifically orthodontics was quite late to adopt this in the specialty. In the early 2000s onward, there appeared articles in orthodontic literature related to Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and malocclusion. According to WHO, if an anomaly is to be regarded as one requiring treatment, it should be causing a disfigurement or functional defect or is likely to affect patient's physical or emotional well-being.[4] From this standpoint, there is clear justification for orthodontic treatment. The objectives of orthodontic treatment according to Jackson's triad are structural balance, functional efficiency, and esthetic harmony. With the new concept of QoL paradigm, it is obvious that these objectives should work on an OHRQoL platform and assessed accordingly [Figure 1]. The impact of malocclusion on OHRQoL has been debated; however, a recent systematic review showed that malocclusion has a definite impact on an individual's QoL, and orthodontic treatment improves it.[5]
Figure 1: Modified Jackson's triad on an Oral Health-Related Quality of Life platform

Click here to view


Patient is the center of any health-care system, and recently, there has been a realization of this patient-centered health-care model. According to US Food and Drug Administration, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is “any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else”. In future, PROMs will be the mainstay of outcome assessment compared to clinical and peer assessment or caregiver assessment. Patient-reported experience measures are also used as quality indicators of patient care and safety. In clinical orthodontics, outcome can be assessed by clinician (on patient directly and on study models, X-rays or on photographs), caretaker (e.g. for children), or patient themselves (self-reported).

Even though this article is titled as PROMs, it includes all forms of patient-reported measures for assessing malocclusion and treatment because any such report is obtained through validated tools or questionnaires. It is interchangeably used in this manuscript as QoL measures or scales even though QoL is much broader multidimensional construct than PROM.


  Historical Background Top


After the WHO[6] defined health as “not only the absence of infirmity and disease but also a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being,” health-care professionals were reminded that a patient's health was more than just a corporeal state and may be affected by environmental, social, and emotional factors. Until then, researchers were interested in the biological or the medical model of health which is empirically testable by means of controlled experiments. The additions of mental and social element of health lead to the introduction of biopsychosocial model of health. This social science paradigm or QoL aspect of health and disease focuses on dimensions of functioning, well-being, and ability of the individual to perform social roles. It cannot be tested by means of clinical experiments since these models of health are founded in psychology, sociology, and economics, the methodologies of which are alien to physicians and medical researchers.[7]

For better understanding of the phenomenon behind a proposed theory, it can be schematically represented by depicting interrelationships among various concepts. Conceptual model is a schematic representation of proposed etiological linkages believed to be related to a particular problem or disease.[8] It helps to refine the research question and operationalize the idea.

One of the earliest conceptual models of health is proposed by the WHO – the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps in the year 1980. In 1988, Locker[9] adapted the WHO model into the oral health scenario and proposed the first conceptual model for OHRQoL. This resulted in a fundamental shift in dentistry from a paradigm emphasizing disease and a medical model of care to one that incorporated a patient-centered perspective. Locker in his conceptual model for oral disease has given five sequentially related abstract concepts, namely impairment, functional limitation, pain/discomfort, disability, and handicap. However, this model did not consider individual and environmental factors which are likely to play an integral role in oral health. In 1995, another model was introduced by Wilson and Cleary[10] which was simple and comprehensive. It is a merger between the prevailing biomedical concept and the emerging social concept. This model is based on five abstract concepts, namely biological/physiological, symptom status, functional status, general health, and QoL plus mentioning of individual and environmental factors. Wilson and Cleary's model is the most widely tested and applied conceptual model in HRQoL. The other commonly discussed HRQoL models are one by Ferrans et al.[11] which is a modification of Wilson and Cleary's model and WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and another one by WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children and Youth version (WHO-ICF-CY).[12] The latest addition to WHO-ICF-CY was put forth in the year 2007, which covers infants, children, and adolescents also.

Most of the QoL tools developed and tested in dentistry are based on Locker's conceptual model. Masood et al.[13] in 2016 reported that Locker's model is not ideal for orthodontic problems when they found certain altered pathways using structural equation modeling method. Bakas et al.[14] in a systematic review of conceptual models applicable in medical field recommended the use of Ferran's model which is a modification of Wilson and Cleary's model due to the addition of individual and environmental characteristics. However, application of these models as such in orthodontics is questionable due to the peculiar nature of orthodontic problems. Benson et al.[15] in a cohort study to evaluate the relationship between dental appearance, self-esteem, socioeconomic status, and OHRQoL among UK children have used a simplified Wilson and Cleary's model [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Simplified Wilson and Cleary's model linking clinical and non-clinical variables for orthodontic application (modified from Benson et al.)

Click here to view



  Definitions Top


Health has been defined by WHO[6] in 1948 as “not only the absence of infirmity and disease but also a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing.” This has been revised in 1984 as “the extent to which an individual or group is able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment.” Dolan[16] defined oral health as “a comfortable and functional dentition which allows individuals to continue in their desired social role.”

In 2016, FDI as part of vision 2020 developed a new definition for oral health with a framework and efforts are underway to measure this new definition.[17] The new definition is, “Oral health is multi-faceted and includes the ability to speak, smile, smell, taste, touch, chew, swallow and convey a range of emotions through facial expressions with confidence and without pain, discomfort and disease of the craniofacial complex.”

The term “QoL” was first used by the British economist Pigou[18] in 1920. Later, after World War II, this term was adapted into other areas such as sociology, politics, and health. The concept of QoL applied in medical field termed as HRQoL[19] has been defined as “people's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns”. In simple terms, it can be defined as “a sense of well-being that stems from satisfaction or dissatisfaction with areas of life that are important” to the individual.[20]

The more specific concept[21] of “OHRQoL” has been defined as “a standard of health of oral and related tissues which enables an individual to eat, speak, and socialize without active disease, discomfort, or embarrassment.” Inglehart andBagramian[22] defined it as “the absence of negative impacts of oral conditions on social life and a positive sense of dentofacial self-confidence.”


  Need for Patient-Reported Outcome Assessment in Orthodontics Top


Any objective measure of malocclusion or treatment outcome need to be supplemented with patient-reported measures due to the following reasons:

  • There is a disparity observed between patient-reported measures and objective measures
  • Patient's rating of their problems or outcome need not necessarily correlate with those of clinician's rating.


Burdenet al.[23] claimed that orthodontic treatment provides benefit in four main areas resulting in a reduced susceptibility to dental caries, periodontal disease, temporomandibular joint problems, and traumatic dental injury. However, these benefits are objective and are easily measurable. The psychological gain following orthodontic treatment can be measured only using psychometric tools.

O'Brien et al.[24] reported that most QoL assessment tools developed and validated in dentistry are not applicable for orthodontics because of the nature of the orthodontic problem. Malocclusion is mere anatomic variation, and pain or discomfort is not usually associated with it.


  Essential Features and Types of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Top


Scales, psychometric tools, validated questionnaires, etc., are often interchangeably used as measures to record this psychological dimension of health. They are developed and validated based on strict psychometric principles and theory. Any psychometric instrument should be valid, reliable, and should demonstrate responsiveness, i.e. ability to detect change over time.[25] A brief description of each feature is presented in [Table 1]. Any HRQoL tool should include domains such as physical status, psychological status and wellbeing, social interactions, economic or vocational status, and religious or spiritual status. Cunningham and Hunt[26] identified some problems in HRQoL research; they are lack of proper definition for QoL, lack of gold standard tool for comparison, lack of proper research question before studying HRQoL, and cumbersomeness of the tool. Currently, there are two criteria available to evaluate HRQoL measures. One by Gill and Feinstein[27] and another by Guyatt and Cook.[28] Brown[29] proposed certain guidelines for researchers studying HRQoL; they are correct choice of instrument, timing of measurement, and frequency of measurement.
Table 1: Essential features of patient-reported outcome measures

Click here to view


The tools used to assess patient-reported measures in orthodontics can be divided into generic and condition specific (CS). The generic tools used extensively in orthodontics include Oral Health Impact Profile[30] (OHIP-49 and OHIP-14), Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP),[31] and Child Oral Health QoL Questionnaires (COHQoL).[32] The frequently used CS measures include Orthognathic QoL Questionnaire (OQLQ),[33],[34] Psychosocial Impact on Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ),[35] and Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ).[36],[37]


  Commonly Used Generic Tools in Orthodontics Top


Oral Health Impact Profile

Slade and Spencer[30] in the year 1994 developed OHIP based on Locker's Conceptual model[9] which is in turn an adaptation of the WHO's Classification Of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. The original instrument consisted of 49 items in 7 domains. The domains were functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap. OHIP has been translated and validated and cross-culturally adapted to various languages. Though it is a generic questionnaire, it had been used extensively in orthodontics also. A short form of OHIP with 14 items in 7 domains has been developed in 1997 by Slade.[38] In spite of being short, it is found to be reliable and valid, sensitive to change, and demonstrated adequate cross-cultural consistency.

Oral Impact on Daily Performance

The OIDP index was developed byAdulyanon and Sheiham[31] in1997 based on Locker's Conceptual model which has three levels: oral status and impairments, intermediate impacts (pain, discomfort, functional limitations, and dissatisfaction with appearance), and ultimate impacts (psychosocial and physical disability and handicap). While the majority of OHRQoL instruments focus on measuring the second level, the OIDP puts emphasis on the third level to determine oral impacts on the ability to perform everyday activities. It measures oral impacts on eight performances, i.e. eating, speaking, cleaning teeth/denture, sleeping and relaxing, emotional stability, smiling, carrying out main role/everyday activities, and social contacts. This tool can be modified as a CS OIDP by selectively using those attributes related to malocclusion alone.[39] Gherunpong et al.[40] in 2004 developed a child version of OIDP which can be used both as generic and CS measure.

Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire

The COHQoL questionnaire[32],[41] is made up of five instruments: the Parental–Caregiver Perceptions Questionnaire (P-CPQ), which measures parent's or caregiver's perceptions regarding the impact of children's oral health on QoL; the Family Impact Scale, which assesses the impact on the family; and the CPQ, which assesses children's perceptions regarding the impact of oral health on QoL. There are three versions of the CPQ, one for each of three specific age groups: 6–7, 8–10, and 11–14 years. Though it is a generic tool, it has been used extensively among orthodontic patients. CPQ11-14 is a self-administered questionnaire popular for orthodontic use because of the age for which it is used. There are 37 questions that ask about the frequency of events in preceding 3 months arranged in 4 domains; 6 questions regarding oral symptoms, 9 questions about functional limitations, 9 questions related to emotional well-being, and 13 questions related to social well-being. The same authors also developed a short form of CPQ containing 16 items for clinical use and 8 items for epidemiological use. Marshman and Robinson[42] and O'Brien et al.[43] have reported that the CPQ11-14 is valid in the UK. It has been stated that CPQ will be the generic tool of choice for orthodontic patients.


  Condition-Specific Tools Used in Orthodontics Top


For CS problems like malocclusion, generic tools are of little value because all such measures are based on existing conceptual model for disease. Malocclusion cannot be considered as a disease; hence pain, discomfort, and functional limitation are of little importance to orthodontic patients. Marshman and Robinson[42] and Locker and Allen[44] have questioned the appropriateness of using generic tools for malocclusion [Table 2]. First CS measure for malocclusion was introduced byMandall et al.,[45] in 1999. It was subsequently named as Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale (OASIS). They showed that children with high OASIS score were the one who had definite need for orthodontic treatment.
Table 2: Oral health outcome measures and its applicability in orthodontics

Click here to view


Cunningham et al.[33],[34] in 2000 introduced OQLQ which addresses the subjective impact of orthodontic-specific problems in adults. It was developed for individuals with dentofacial problems requiring orthognathic surgery; hence, the questions were regarding facial appearance. OQOLQ was developed based on the criteria by Guyatt et al.[46] and Juniper et al.[47] Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have established the validity of the tool.[48]

Klages et al.[35] based on their previous research developed PIDAQ containing 23 items in 4 domains. The domains were dental self-confidence (DSC) with 6 items, social impact (SI) with 8 items, esthetics' concern with 3 items, and 6 items in PI scale. The SI scale and esthetic concern scale contained revised items of OQLQ. DSC scale was based on their previous research and PI scale was newly developed. The uniqueness of the scale is incorporation of DSC domain, which measures positive aspects of dental occlusion. It has been suggested that OHRQoL measures should include questions dealing with well-being and not only detrimental effects of oral conditions. PIDAQ is one of the most widely used CS measures which is translated and validated in Brazil, China, India, France, Malaysia, Malaya, Morocco, Spain, Turkey, and Nepal.

Benson et al.[36],[37] in 2016 developed MIQ, which had 17 items and 2 global questions. Based on an initial qualitative inquiry and item development process, a set of questions were developed, and in the second part of the study, they did a cross-sectional evaluation to establish the reliability and validity. A 3-point response format, Don't/Doesn't = 0, A bit = 1, Very/A lot = 2, was used. This CS tool is applicable for children aged between 10–16 years. The questions were arranged in 3 sections: about how the teeth looks, how the teeth affects life, and about the health and functioning of teeth. However, responsiveness testing, further validation, and cross-cultural adaptation are required and are underway.


  Other Generic Tools Used Along With Condition-Specific Tools to Supplement Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Top


Several generic scales are used in tandem for OHRQoL assessment. The use of multiple scales are recommended for OHRQoL assessment because of the multidimensional nature of the construct.[26] A single scale cannot measure all the required constructs. Commonly used such supplemental generic scales are SF-36, EuroQoL, sickness impact profile, and General Health Questionnaire. Moderating factors influencing OHRQoL such as self-esteem and psychological well-being also have been subjected to study in orthodontics. Rosenberg's self-esteem scale is the commonly used measure for studying SE of adult orthodontic patients. It consists of 10 questions graded in a four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Higher score means better self-esteem and vice versa. State self-esteem scale and collective self-esteem scales have also been used sporadically among adolescents in orthodontics.[49] Agou et al.[50] used SE subdomain of CHQ-CF87 questionnaire in 11–14-year-old children. Psychological well-being,[51] personality types, perfectionism among orthodontic patients,[52] body image, and body satisfaction[53] have also been studied using psychometric tools in orthodontics.


  Discussion Top


The aim of this article is to sensitize the QoL paradigm[54] which is in vogue for orthodontic readers. Outcome measure is not restricted to treatment outcome alone; it includes disease outcome also in this context. This is because the measures used to estimate both are same. Many more CS measures befitting for independent treatments such as lingual appliance, functional appliance, or clear aligners can be expected in future. However, any such measure should be based on sound psychometric theory, following strict principles enabling comparison between populations.

Malocclusion and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Malocclusion being a developmental problem causing impact in psychological, social, functional, and emotional domain is found to affect an individual's OHRQoL. Esthetic component of IOTN was the first attempt to record patient perception for assessing treatment need. Nonvalidated questionnaires used in research to record this dimension of malocclusion are of little value. Validated CS psychometric tools are the key to record this intangible aspect of malocclusion that enables international comparison. The impact of malocclusion resulting in poor QoL is not consistent in orthodontic literature. O' Brien et al.[43] reported that the most important domain affected due to malocclusion is the psychological and not the functional one. Furthermore, girls showed more impact than boys probably due to the sex effect on perception of health care and orthodontic treatment. Questions related to emotional and social well-being, shyness, embarrassment, being upset, avoidance of smiling, and public interactions are more relevant to an orthodontic patient. Dimberg et al.[5] in a systematic review reported that malocclusions have negative effect on OHRQoL. The four out of six cross-sectional studies considered were of high quality, and the remaining two were of moderate quality, and the domains affected most were emotional and social well-being.

Patients with cleft lip and palate or other dentofacial deformities are thought to have much worse QoL compared to those with minor malocclusions. However, it has been shown that the QoL status of such patients is not worse than those with dental caries.[44] This is because individuals with severe dentofacial problems are mentally prepared to psychological insults quite often than individuals with minor malocclusions. This discordance between patient's perception of health and well-being on one side and normative health status on the other side is known as disability paradox.

Gherunpong et al.[55] evaluated a sociodental approach in assessing orthodontic treatment need in children. They conceptualized assessment of treatment need at 3 different levels. Normative need based on the assessment of treatment need using indices, classification systems, or cephalometric criteria. Impact-related need by using an OHRQoL measure that records the impact in various domains and propensity-related treatment need is based on oral hygiene status and patient compliance in addition to above two. This classification allows prioritizing children for orthodontic treatment, especially when treatment is provided by governmental agencies at a low cost. It also helps to differentiate those candidates who will really benefit with orthodontic treatment. Those with high or high to medium propensity-related need will benefit better because of compliance, especially for complex treatments. The level of need is reduced by 70% when compared to normative assessment using intensity-related need; this is reduced further by 80% when assessed using propensity-related need. Those with low propensity require broader behavioral approach of dental care than those detected using normative need.

Orthodontic treatment and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Orthodontic treatment has shown consistently to improve OHRQoL.[56],[57],[58] Palomares et al.[59] in a cross-sectional study demonstrated that individuals who had a history of orthodontic treatment had a better OHRQoL compared to those without treatment. Javidi et al.[60] in a recent systematic review identified modest improvement in QoL among those who had undergone orthodontic treatment before 18 years. However, the studies included were of low to moderate quality.

Fixed appliance and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Fixed appliance is the means by which complex malocclusions are treated. However, orthodontic treatment is not without pain and discomfort. Wearing fixed appliance has been shown to worsen OHRQoL. This worsening is maximum during the initial months of treatment. When patients get used to the appliance, OHRQoL score improves and negative impact is not marked after 6 months into treatment. Zhang et al.[61] in 2008 showed that there is worsening of the QoL during the first 6 months into orthodontic treatment using fixed appliance, especially oral symptoms and functional limitations. However, emotional well-being was found to improve during this stage. The period of greatest change was reported in the initial month of placing the appliance. Liu et al.[62] also observed similar initial worsening and later improvement after 6 months suggesting the need for reducing the appliance burden during the initial phases of treatment. A recent study which evaluated the perfectionist nature among orthodontic patients seeking labial or lingual appliance revealed that patients opting for lingual appliance are more perfectionists.[52]

Orthognathic surgery and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Orthognathic surgery aims to correct severe dentofacial deformities and normalize facial appearance. Hence, the OHRQoL improvement is expected to be maximum in these patients. However, the pain and discomfort associated with surgical procedure temporarily result in worsening of negative impacts during orthognathic surgery. This initial worsening is followed by improvement in QoL. Kiyak[63] in longitudinal study demonstrated an improvement in QoL following orthognathic surgery. She demonstrated the importance of completing postsurgical orthodontic treatment within 6 months after surgery. There is a confusion regarding the most appropriate OHRQoL tool for orthognathic surgery patients.[64] It has been suggested to use a combination of generic and CS tool in these patients. The improvement in OHRQoL following orthognathic surgery has found to be stable at 2 years,[63] 5 years,[48] and even after 16 years.[23]

Bullying and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Bullying is endemic among school children. It is as a situation in which an individual is exposed repeatedly and over time to negative actions by at least one other person. Most commonly targeted dentofacial features for bullying are spacing between teeth or missing teeth, shape or color of teeth, and prominent maxillary anterior teeth.[66] Seehra et al.[67] have shown that children who are bullied due to dentofacial trails were at high risk of having a poor OHRQoL. Al-Omari et al.[68] using CPQ11–14 showed a definite link between poor OHRQoL and bullying due to dentofacial traits and stressed the importance of antibullying programs in school. Hence, it can be presumed that bullying affects emotional and psychological well-being of individuals making OHRQoL worse.

Self-esteem, psychological well-being, and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

It has been stated that adolescence is the period of self-esteem formation, while Robin et al. in a study consisting of sample aged from 9 to 90 have reported that “self-esteem levels are high in childhood, dropped during adolescence, rose gradually throughout adulthood and declined sharply in old age.” Self-esteem, malocclusion, and orthodontic treatment had been viewed differently by researchers.

Some children are at remarkable level of concern for minor problems than others who are tolerant to complex occlusal problems. This may be due to the presence of moderators influencing QoL. Agou et al.[51] reported that self-esteem of individuals has such mediator role. Those with high levels of self-esteem (SE) demonstrated lesser negative impact on QoL. In another Brazilian study, it was shown that those with low SE were more sensitive to esthetic effects of malocclusion. Onyeaso and Sanu[69] demonstrated those with high SE did not bother for orthodontic treatment even in the presence of malocclusion. In contrast, Clijmans et al.[70] reported that there is no evidence that SE and personality trait have a moderating role in OHRQoL. However, their study was cross-sectional, and sample size was small. Johal et al.[71] in a prospective study showed an improvement in SE following fixed orthodontic treatment though it is considered a stable trait immune to external influences.

Psychological well-being (PWB) is another moderating factor influencing OHRQoL. It refers to general happiness and overall satisfaction with life. Twin studies have shown that PWB is considerably stable over time and is influenced by genetics and inherent personality characteristics. Agouet al.[51] demonstrated that children with high levels of PWB at baseline had better OHRQoL regardless of their orthodontic treatment status and those with low PWB who did not receive orthodontic treatment experienced worse QoL, compared to those who received treatment. Hence, the moderating role of SE and PWB should be considered while studying OHRQoL. Studies have also shown that contextual factors such as socioeconomic status, family type, and access to orthodontic care can also influence OHRQoL.


  Conclusion Top


Patient-centered health care is gaining popularity, and orthodontics is no exception. Validated psychometric tools are employed to record this dimension of orthodontic care. An entire issue of orthodontic journal “Seminars in orthodontics” (2007) has been devoted to this topic about 12 years back. When malocclusion is a condition that requires treatment mostly for esthetic reasons, its reflection perceived in the mind of a customer is of utmost importance. Moreover, the changes brought about by treatment should be measured both objectively using normative criteria and subjectively using patient-reported measures. Treatment is successful only if there is improvement based on both criteria. The legal value of PROM in a consumerist society seeking redressal for any deficiency in service is yet to be tested in a court of law.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Shaw WC, Richmond S, Kenealy PM, Kingdon A, Worthington H. A 20-year cohort study of health gain from orthodontic treatment: Psychological outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:146-57.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:309-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Jenny J, Cons NC. Comparing and contrasting two orthodontic indices, the index of orthodontic treatment need and the dental aesthetic index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:410-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
World Health Organisation. Standardisation of Reporting of Dental Diseases and Conditions. Report of an Expert Committee on Dental Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1962.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Dimberg L, Arnrup K, Bondemark L. The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:238-47.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic Documents. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1948.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Baiju RM, Peter E, Varghese NO, Sivaram R. Oral health and quality of life: Current concepts. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:ZE21-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Earp JA, Ennett ST. Conceptual models for health education research and practice. Health Educ Res 1991;6:163-71.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Locker D. Measuring oral health: A conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 1988;5:3-18.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;273:59-65.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ferrans CE, Zerwic JJ, Wilbur JE, Larson JL. Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. J Nurs Scholarsh 2005;37:336-42.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth Version. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Masood M, Masood Y, Newton T, Lahti S. Development of a conceptual model of oral health for malocclusion patients. Angle Orthod 2015;85:1057-63.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bakas T, McLennon SM, Carpenter JS, Buelow JM, Otte JL, Hanna KM, et al. Systematic review of health-related quality of life models. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10:134.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Benson PE, Da'as T, Johal A, Mandall NA, Williams AC, Baker SR, et al. Relationships between dental appearance, self-esteem, socio-economic status, and oral health-related quality of life in UK schoolchildren: A 3-year cohort study. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:481-90.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Dolan TA. Identification of appropriate outcomes for an aging population. Spec Care Dentist 1993;13:35-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Glick M, Williams DM, Kleinman DV, Vujicic M, Watt RG, Weyant RJ. A new definition for oral health developed by the FDI World dental federation opens the door to a universal definition of oral health. J Am Dent Assoc 2016;147:915-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Pigou AC. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited; 1920.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
World Health Organization. Measuring Quality of Life: The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Becker M, Diamond R, Sainfort F. A new patient focused index for measuring quality of life in persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Qual Life Res 1993;2:239-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Department of Health. An Oral Health Strategy for England. London: HMSO; 1994.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Inglehart MR, Bagramian RA, editors. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Burden DJ, Pine CM, Burnside G. Modified IOTN: An orthodontic treatment need index for use in oral health surveys. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:220-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
O'Brien K, Kay L, Fox D, Mandall N. Assessing oral health outcomes for orthodontics – Measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health 1998;15:22-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Streiner DL, Norman G, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Quality of life and its importance in orthodontics. J Orthod 2001;28:152-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619-26.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Guyatt GD, Cook DJ. Health status, quality of life and the individual. JAMA 1994;272:630-1.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Brown RS Jr. Strategies and pitfalls in quality of life research. Hepatology 1999;29:9S-12S.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral health impact profile. Community Dent Health 1994;11:3-11.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Adulyanon S, Sheiham A. Oral impacts on daily performances. In: Slade GD, editor. Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Dental Ecology; 1997. p. 152-60.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G, et al. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 2002;81:459-63.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Cunningham SJ, Garratt AM, Hunt NP. Development of a condition-specific quality of life measure for patients with dentofacial deformity: I. Reliability of the instrument. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000;28:195-201.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Cunningham SJ, Garratt AM, Hunt NP. Development of a condition-specific quality of life measure for patients with dentofacial deformity: II. Validity and responsiveness testing. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002;30:81-90.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Klages U, Claus N, Wehrbein H, Zentner A. Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:103-11.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Patel N, Hodges SJ, Hall M, Benson PE, Marshman Z, Cunningham SJ. Development of the malocclusion impact questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life of young people with malocclusion: Part 1 – Qualitative inquiry. J Orthod 2016;43:7-13.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Benson PE, Cunningham SJ, Shah N, Gilchrist F, Baker SR, Hodges SJ, et al. Development of the malocclusion impact questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life of young people with malocclusion: Part 2 – Cross-sectional validation. J Orthod 2016;43:14-23.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Bernabé E, de Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. Comparison of the discriminative ability of a generic and a condition-specific OHRQoL measure in adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:64.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Gherunpong S, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. Developing and evaluating an oral health-related quality of life index for children; the CHILD-OIDP. Community Dent Health 2004;21:161-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Jokovic A, Locker D, Tompson B, Guyatt G. Questionnaire for measuring oral health-related quality of life in eight- to ten-year-old children. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:512-8.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Marshman Z, Robinson P. Child and adolescent oral health-related quality of life. Semin Orthod 2007;13:88-95.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
O'Brien K, Wright JL, Conboy F, Macfarlane T, Mandall N. The child perception questionnaire is valid for malocclusions in the United Kingdom. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:536-40.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Locker D, Allen F. What do measures of 'oral health-related quality of life' measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:401-11.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Mandall N, McCord J, Mandall NA, McCord JF, Blinkhorn AS. Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14-15 year-old Asian and Caucasian children in Greater Manchester. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:175-83.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Pugsley SO, Chambers LW. A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax 1987;42:773-8.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschcke R. How to develop and validate a new health related quality of life instrument. In: Spiker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott- Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 49-56.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Motegi E, Hatch JP, Rugh JD, Yamaguchi H. Health-related quality of life and psychosocial function 5 years after orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:138-43.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Taibah SM, Al-Hummayani FM. Effect of malocclusion on the self-esteem of adolescents. J Orthod Sci 2017;6:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Agou S, Locker D, Streiner DL, Tompson B. Impact of self-esteem on the oral-health-related quality of life of children with malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:484-9.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Agou S, Locker D, Muirhead V, Tompson B, Streiner DL. Does psychological well-being influence oral-health-related quality of life reports in children receiving orthodontic treatment? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:369-77.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Bellot-Arcís C, Ferrer-Molina M, Carrasco-Tornero Á, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM. Differences in psychological traits between lingual and labial orthodontic patients: Perfectionism, body image, and the impact of dental esthetics. Angle Orthod 2015;85:58-63.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Slade GD, Dewey ME, Newton T, Brodie P, Kiemle G. Development and preliminary validation of the Body Satisfaction Scale (BSS). Psychol Health 1990;3:213-20.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Krishnan V. Orthodontics: Newer challenges, modern solutions. J World Fed Orthod 2017;6:141.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Gherunpong S, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. A socio-dental approach to assessing children's orthodontic needs. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:393-9.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Andiappan M, Gao W, Bernabé E, Kandala NB, Donaldson AN. Malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and the oral health impact profile (OHIP-14): Systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2015;85:493-500.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U. The impact of malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need on the quality of life. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2009;79:585-91.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Zhou Y, Wang Y, Wang X, Volière G, Hu R. The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:66.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Palomares NB, Celeste RK, Oliveira BH, Miguel JA. How does orthodontic treatment affect young adults' oral health-related quality of life? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:751-8.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Javidi H, Vettore M, Benson PE. Does orthodontic treatment before the age of 18 years improve oral health-related quality of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:644-55.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Zhang M, McGrath C, Hägg U. Changes in oral health-related quality of life during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg 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.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Kiyak HA. Does orthodontic treatment affect patients' quality of life? J Dent Educ 2008;72:886-94.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Peter E, Baiju RM, Kumar S, Varghese NO. Oral health-related quality of life in surgery- first vs. traditional orthognathic approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:738-9.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Cunningham SJ, O'Brien C. Quality of life and orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2007;13:96-103.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Al-Bitar ZB, Al-Omari IK, Sonbol HN, Al-Ahmad HT, Cunningham SJ. Bullying among Jordanian schoolchildren, its effects on school performance, and the contribution of general physical and dentofacial features. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:872-8.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Seehra J, Newton JT, Dibiase AT. Interceptive orthodontic treatment in bullied adolescents and its impact on self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:615-21.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Al-Omari IK, Al-Bitar ZB, Sonbol HN, Al-Ahmad HT, Cunningham SJ, Al-Omiri M, et al. Impact of bullying due to dentofacial features on oral health-related quality of life. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:734-9.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Onyeaso CO, Sanu OO. Perception of personal dental appearance in Nigerian adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:700-6.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Clijmans M, Lemiere J, Fieuws S, Willems G. Impact of self-esteem and personality traits on the association between orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality of life in adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:643-50.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
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.  Back to cited text no. 71
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Historical Backg...
Definitions
Need for Patient...
Essential Featur...
Commonly Used Ge...
Condition-Specif...
Other Generic To...
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed259    
    Printed32    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]