| Summary: | 碩士 === 高雄醫學大學 === 口腔衛生科學研究所 === 91 === Objectives: 1.Assess oral health conditions, 2.Evaluate study should be mentioned the perceived impact of oral health conditions, 3.Investigate association between the oral health conditions and the perceived impact of oral health conditions. Methods: Using the relationship of two measures of self-report outcome, the MOS SF-36 (36-items short form) scale and the OHIP (oral health impact profile) scale, and clinical indicators of oral health were carried out on adolescents in Changhua County Taiwan. Results: A random sample of 367(89.73%) adolescents completed the OHIP, and 409 of them completed the SF-36 and a clinical dental examination assessing DMFT and CPI. Participants averaged 14.82 (SD=1.79) years old; 50.37% were female; and 44.01% were high-school students. The mean DMFT was 4.33 (SD=3.83) and 34.96% of participants were found CPI≧1. Analyses of reporting participants found that female and high-school students had a higher DMFT. And high-school students with petty cash of NT$ 51 or more, and parents with only an elementary-education, and the father’s occupation as farming (or forestry or fishery or grazier) had poor CPI. For the PCS (physical component summary) and MCS (mental component summary) of SF-36 scale averaged 50.01 (SD=5.21) and 43.70 (SD=8.68) individually. For the scores of OHIP scale averaged 68.07 (SD=36.57). Analyses of reporting participants found that female and high-school students had poor general health quality of life on SF-36 as well as poor oral health quality of life on the OHIP. In addition, none of the SF-36 scale was significantly related to DMFT and CPI. The OHIP scale was consistently relate to DMFT-those with wore oral health reported more impacts. Conclusions: Those female and high school students presented that relative poor oral health conditions as well as poor health-related quality of life. Although the SF-36 and OHIP were correlated seemingly, the OHIP appears to be more associated with the impact of oral health conditions than the SF-36 among adolescents who reported low general and oral health quality of life. But the OHIP scale of the variance was explained better than SF-36. In addition, the most important finding was that participants with a higher DMFT index reported higher (greater impact) OHIP scores.
|
|---|
