| 1. |
- Bondemark, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Funktionsstörningar och smärta
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Tandläkartidningen. - 0039-6982. ; 100:9-10, s. 64-68
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Orofaciala funktionsstörningar och smärta är en sammanfattning av kliniska problem och sjukdomar som involverar bett, käkar, tuggmuskulatur, käkleder och omgivande strukturer. Orsakerna är oftast multifaktoriella för de barn, ungdomar och vuxna som drabbas.
|
|
| 2. |
- Feldmann, Ingalill, et al.
(författare)
-
Orthodontic anchoring techniques and its influence on pain, discomfort, and jaw function--a randomized controlled trial.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Orthodontics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0141-5387 .- 1460-2210. ; 34:1, s. 102-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this trial was to evaluate and compare perceived pain, discomfort, and jaw function impairment between orthodontic treatments combined with skeletal anchorage and treatment using conventional anchorage with headgear or transpalatal bar. A total of 120 adolescent patients in order to start orthodontic treatment were consecutively recruited and randomized into three groups with different anchorage. Group A underwent installation of a skeletal anchorage (Onplant or Orthosystem implant), group B received headgear, and group C a transpalatal bar. Questionnaires were used to assess pain intensity, discomfort, analgesic consumption, and jaw function impairment from baseline to the end of treatment. Pain scores overall peaked on day 2 and were almost back to baseline on day 7. The site with the highest pain scores during treatment was incisors in contact but with no differences between groups. Pain intensity from molars was significantly less in the skeletal anchorage group A compared to the transpalatal bar group C the first 4 days in treatment and with no sign differences compared to headgear. The results confirm that there were very few significant differences between patients' perceptions of skeletal and conventional anchorage systems during orthodontic treatment. Consequently, these new appliances were well accepted by the patients in a long time perspective and can thus be recommended.
|
|
| 3. |
- Feldmann, Ingalill, et al.
(författare)
-
Pain intensity and discomfort following surgical placement of orthodontic anchoring units and premolar extraction : a randomized controlled trial
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Angle orthodontist. - : The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation). - 0003-3219 .- 1945-7103. ; 77:4, s. 578-585
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare perceived pain intensity and discomfort between the placement of two different orthodontic anchoring units designed for osseointegration and premolar extraction in adolescent patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 adolescent patients (60 girls and 60 boys) were recruited and randomized into three groups. Group A underwent installation of an onplant, group B installation of an Orthosystem implant, and group C premolar extraction. Pain intensity and discomfort, analgesic consumption, limitations in daily activities, and functional jaw impairment were evaluated the first evening and one week after the intervention. RESULTS: Pain intensity following surgical installation of an onplant was comparable to the pain intensity experienced after premolar extraction, but there was significantly less pain after surgical installation of an Orthosystem implant compared to installation of an onplant (P = .002) or premolar extraction (P = .007). The protective, vacuum-formed stent caused great discomfort, even more discomfort than the surgical sites following installation of the onplant or the Orthosystem implant. CONCLUSION: The Orthosystem implant was better tolerated than the onplant in terms of pain intensity, discomfort, and analgesic consumption and was, therefore, the anchorage system of choice in a short-term perspective.
|
|
| 4. |
- Feldmann, Ingalill, et al.
(författare)
-
Reliability of a questionnaire assessing experiences of adolescents in orthodontic treatment
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Angle orthodontist. - 0003-3219 .- 1945-7103. ; 77:2, s. 311-317
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of a questionnaire that assessed the expectations and experiences of adolescent patients about orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included two groups of patients: 30 consecutive patients (19 girls and 11 boys, mean age 14.6 years, SD 2.3 years) naive to orthodontic treatment, and 30 consecutive adolescent patients (17 girls and 13 boys, mean age 15.1 years, SD 2.0 years) in active orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both jaws. A questionnaire comprising 46 items was developed, based upon focus group interviews and previous established questionnaires. The questionnaire covered the following domains: Treatment motivation; treatment expectations; pain and discomfort from teeth, jaws, and face; functional jaw impairment; and questionnaire validity. Internal consistency as well as temporal stability with the test-retest method was investigated. RESULTS: A majority of the questions exhibited acceptable test-retest reliability, and composite scores yielded excellent reliability for all domains. Internal consistency was acceptable and good face validity was found for all domains. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire can be recommended for use in the assessment of expectations and experiences of orthodontic treatment.
|
|
| 5. |
- John, Mike T., et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping Oral Disease Impact with a Common Metric (MOM)—Project summary and recommendations
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1365-2842 .- 0305-182X. ; 48:3, s. 305-307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact—the dimensions of oral health-related quality of life—capture dental patients’ oral health problems worldwide and regardless of whether the patient currently suffers from oral diseases or intends to prevent them in the future. Using scores for these dimensions, the project Mapping Oral Disease Impact with a Common Metric (MOM) aims to provide four-dimensional oral health impact information across oral diseases and settings. In this article, project authors summarize MOM’s findings and provide recommendations about how to improve standardized oral health impact assessment. Project MOM’s systematic reviews identified four-dimensional impact information for 189 adult and 22 pediatric patient populations that were contained in 170 publications. A typical functional, pain-related, aesthetical, and psychosocial impact (on a 0-8 impact metric based on two items with a response format 0 = never, 1 = hardly ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often) was about 2 to 3 units. Project MOM provides five recommendations to improve standardized oral health impact assessment for all oral diseases in all settings.
|
|
| 6. |
- John, M. T., et al.
(författare)
-
Recommendations for use and scoring of oral health impact profile versions
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice. - Philadelphia, PA, United States : Elsevier. - 1532-3382 .- 1532-3390. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: OHIP's original seven-domain structure does not fit empirical data, but a psychometrically sound and clinically more plausible structure with the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact has emerged. Consequently, use and scoring of available OHIP versions need to be revisited. Aim: We assessed how well the overall construct OHRQoL and its four dimensions were measured with several OHIP versions (20, 19, 14, and 5 items) to derive recommendations which instruments should be used and how to score them. Methods: Data came from the “Dimensions of OHRQoL Project” and used the project's learning sample (5,173 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects with 49-item OHIP data). We computed correlations among OHIP versions’ summary scores. Correlations between OHRQoL dimensions, on one hand, and OHIP versions’ domain scores or OHIP-5′s items, on the other hand, were also computed. OHIP use and scoring recommendations were derived for psychometrically solid but also practical OHRQoL assessment. Results: Summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19- and 49-item versions correlated highly (r = 0.91–0.98), suggesting similar OHRQoL construct measurement across versions. The OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact were best measured by the OHIP domain scores for Physical Disability, Physical Pain, Psychological Discomfort, and Handicap, respectively. Conclusion: Recommendations were derived which OHIP should be preferably used and how OHIP versions should be scored to capture the overall construct and the dimensions of OHRQoL. Psychometrically solid and practical OHRQoL assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with the 5-item OHIP.
|
|
| 7. |
- Larsson, Pernilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Development Of An Orofacial Aesthetic Scale In Prosthodontic Patients
- 2010
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Objectives: Despite the interest and need to assess orofacial aesthetics in prosthodontic patients, few self-report instruments are available to measure this construct and none describes how prosthodontic patients perceive the appearance of patients' face, mouth, teeth, and dentures. We report development of the Orofacial Aesthetic Scale (OAS), in particular its conceptual framework, how questionnaire items were generated, and the scale's measurement model. Methods: After test conceptualization, we solicited aesthetic concerns in 17 prosthodontic patients who were asked to evaluate their photographs. A focus group of 8 dental professionals reduced the initial number of concerns/items and decided on an item response format. Pilot testing in 9 subjects generated the final instrument, the OAS. We performed exploratory factor analysis to investigate OAS dimensionality and item analysis to investigate item difficulty and discrimination in 119 subjects. Results: Prosthodontic patients generated an initial 28 aesthetic concerns. These items were reduced to 8 preliminary representative items that were subsequently confirmed in pilot testing. Item analysis supported these 8 items assessing appearance: Face, Profile, Mouth, Tooth alignment, Tooth shape, Tooth color, Gums, as well as Overall impression measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 ”Very dissatisfied”, 10 ”Very satisfied” with appearance). Exploratory factor analysis found only 1 factor and high positive loadings for all items (.73 to .94) on the first factor, supporting OAS' unidimensionality. Conclusion: The Orofacial Aesthetic Scale, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, is a brief questionnaire that assesses orofacial aesthetic impacts with freely available Swedish and English versions.
|
|
| 8. |
- Larsson, Pernilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of an Orofacial Esthetic Scale in Prosthodontic Patients
- 2010
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Prosthodontics. - : Quintessence Publishing Co Ltd. - 0893-2174 .- 1139-9791. ; 23:3, s. 249-256
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Despite the interest and need to assess orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients, few self-reporting instruments are available to measure this construct, and none describe how prosthodontic patients perceive the appearance of their face, mouth, teeth, and dentures. The development of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (DES) is reported in this article, in particular its conceptual framework, how questionnaire items were generated, and the scales measurement model. Materials and Methods: After test conceptualization, the authors solicited esthetic concerns from 17 prosthodontic patients by asking them to evaluate their own photographs. A focus group of 8 dental professionals reduced the initial number of concerns/items and decided on an item response format. Pilot testing in 9 subjects generated the final instrument, the DES. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to investigate DES dimensionality and item analysis to investigate item difficulty and discrimination in 119 subjects. Results: Prosthodontic patients generated an initial 28 esthetic concerns. These items were reduced to 8 preliminary representative items that were subsequently confirmed during pilot testing. Analysis supported 8 items assessing appearance: face, profile, mouth, tooth alignment, tooth shape, tooth color, gums, and overall impression, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). Exploratory factor analysis found only 1 factor and high positive loadings for all items (.73 to .94) on the first factor, supporting the unidimensionality of the DES. Conclusions: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, is a brief questionnaire that assesses orofacial esthetic impacts.
|
|
