Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1309-1315
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761450
Original Article

Quality of Life Evaluation of Postsurgical Mandibular Fracture Patients with Oral Health Impact Profile 14 and General Oral Health Assessment Index Parameters

Ardian Jayakusuma Amran
1   Postgraduate Program, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
2   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Indonesia
,
Andra Rizqiawan
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dental Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Indra Mulyawan
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dental Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Okky Prasetio
5   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M. Soewandhie Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Eko Wicaksono Subagio
1   Postgraduate Program, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Mohammad Zeshaan Rahman
6   Department Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pioneer Dental College and Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Mandibular fracture is the most common maxillofacial fracture accompanied by complaints of malocclusion and pain. This causes a decrease in the quality of life. Mandibular fracture management can be done with open reduction and internal fixation or intermaxillary fixation. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP 14) and the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) were used to evaluate the quality of life after surgical treatment based on the distribution of age, sex, type of neglect, and surgical management.

Materials and Methods This research is an analytic study with an analytical observational method with total sampling. The total sample used was 15 patients during the 2006 to 2020 period. The results of this study were scored, and then, the data were processed using the eta test.

Results The results of the study based on the OHIP 14 parameters showed the results of each distribution, namely, age: p = 0.154, gender: p = 0.080, neglected type: p = 0.080, and management: p = 0.419. Meanwhile, the GOHAI parameters showed the results of each distribution, namely, age: p = 0.105, gender: p = 0.356, neglected type: p = 0.356, and management p = 0.286. The results of this distribution showed that there was no significant difference between patients' quality of life based on age, sex, neglected type, and treatment using both OHIP 14 and GOHAI parameters.

Conclusions The results obtained in this study using characteristics of age, gender, type of fracture, type of neglect, and management did not have a significant effect on the level of patient satisfaction after surgery, using both OHIP 14 and GOHAI questionnaires.

Keywords

mandibular fracture - quality of life - OHIP 14 - GOHAI - oral health


Publication History

Article published online:
28 March 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fonseca R, Barber HD, Powers M, Frost DE. Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma. 4th ed. 2012: 499-503
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Warnke P, Sivananthan S, Sherry E, Miller M. Head and Face Trauma. Mercer's Textbook of Orthopaedics and Trauma. 2018: 515-520
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vujcich N, Gebauer D. Current and evolving trends in the management of facial fractures. Aust Dent J 2018; 63 (Suppl 1): S35-S47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schutz P, Anderson L. Midfacial fracture. In: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010: 817-860
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Franciosi E, Mazzaro E, Larranaga J, Rios A, Picco P, Figari M. Treatment of edentulous mandibular fractures with rigid internal fixation: case series and literature review. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2014; 7 (01) 35-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pappachan B, Alexander M. Biomechanics of cranio-maxillofacial trauma. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012; 11 (02) 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Deepak K, Paul ST. Atlas of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2016. 62. 669
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Santos CM, Oliveira BH, Nadanovsky P, Hilgert JB, Celeste RK, Hugo FN. The Oral Health Impact Profile-14: a unidimensional scale?. Cad Saude Publica 2013; 29 (04) 749-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chaturvedi SK, Muliyala KP. The meaning in quality of life. J Psychosoc Rehabil Ment Health 2016; 3 (02) 47-49
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nopitasari SR, Yani RW, Suhartini S. Gambaran Quality of Life Mahasiswa Baru Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Jember Angkatan. 2016: 46-52
    PubMed
  • 11 Hussein MO, Alruthea MS. Marginal bone level changes and Oral Health Impact Profile (14) score of smokers treated by mandibular mini implant overdentures: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (04) 590-597 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714763.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mehta A. Effect of ageing on oral health-related quality of life. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015; 40215: 3-5
    Google Scholar
  • 13 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 (06) 512-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Khelemsky R, Moubayed SP, Buchbinder D. What is the evidence for open versus closed treatment of mandibular condylar fractures in adults?. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (11) 2423-2425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Husain FA, Tatengkeng F. Oral health-related quality of life appraised by OHIP-14 between urban and rural areas in Kutai Kartanegara Regency, Indonesia: pilot pathfinder survey. Open Dent J 2017; 11: 557-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Putri D, Astuti R, Pamungkas KA, Mursali LB. Angka kejadian fraktur mandibula berdasarkan lokasi anatomis di Rsud Arifin Achmad Provinsi Riau Periode Januari 2011 – Desember 2013. J Online Mahasiswa Fakul Kedokteran Univ Riau 2015; 1 (02) 1-14
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Abotaleb BM, Al-Moraissi E, Zhiqiang W. et al. A detailed analysis of mandibular fractures epidemiology, treatment and outcomes: A 5-year retrospective study, Gansu Province-China. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 2018; 30 (03) 197-205
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jin KS, Lee H, Sohn JB. et al. Fracture patterns and causes in the craniofacial region: an 8-year review of 2076 patients. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 40 (01) 29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH, Freire-Maia B, Souza LN. 1,454 mandibular fractures: a 3-year study in a hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012; 40 (02) 116-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Afrooz PN, Bykowski MR, James IB, Daniali LN, Clavijo-Alvarez JA. The epidemiology of mandibular fractures in the United States, part 1: a review of 13,142 cases from the US National Trauma Data Bank. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73 (12) 2361-2366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rashid A, Eyeson J, Haider D, van Gijn D, Fan K. Incidence and patterns of mandibular fractures during a 5-year period in a London teaching hospital. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 51 (08) 794-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Natu SS, Pradhan H, Gupta H. et al. An epidemiological study on pattern and incidence of mandibular fractures. Plast Surg Int 2012; 2012: 834364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Asim MA, Ibrahim MW, Javed MU, Zahra R, Qayyum MU. Functional outcomes of open versus closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar fractures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2019; 31 (01) 67-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Omeje KU, Adebola AR, Efunkoya AA. et al. Prospective study of the quality of life after treatment of mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 53 (04) 342-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Omeje KU, Rana M, Adebola AR. et al. Quality of life in treatment of mandibular fractures using closed reduction and maxillomandibular fixation in comparison with open reduction and internal fixation—a randomized prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (08) 1821-1826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McGrath C, Rogers SN. Overview of instruments used to assess quality of life in dentistry. In: Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures 2010: 145-159
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Rodakowska E, Mierzyńska K, Bagińska J, Jamiołkowski J. Quality of life measured by OHIP-14 and GOHAI in elderly people from Bialystok, north-east Poland. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14 (01) 106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Biradar AS, Hiremath SS, Puranik MP. Comparison of the GOHAI and OHIP-14 as measures of the Oral Health Related Quality of Life of the Elderly Population. J Indian Assoc Publ Health Dent 2013; 11 (04) 48-53
    Google Scholar