Design and multidimensional analysis of dental orthopedic prosthetics quality

The purpose of the research is a multidimensional analysis of the "quality of life" of patients before and after dental prosthetics. It is necessary to assess the quality of life of patients after prosthetics, depending on the type of prostheses, gender, and age of patients and give recommendations on the choice of prosthetics method. 

Methods. Dental prosthetics was performed at the clinic of the Moscow State Medical University named after A. I. Evdokimov, four types of prostheses were tested - the classic traditional prosthesis (TR) and three types of digital prostheses (D1, D2, D3). Based on the developed OHIP-20 DG questionnaire, the quality of life of patients was assessed before prosthetics, immediately after prosthetics and six months later. The quality of life of patients after prosthetics was determined within the framework of the theory of latent variables. Using a four-factor analysis of variance, the impact on the quality of life of the type of prostheses, the duration of adaptation after prosthetics, gender and age of patients was assessed. 

Results. Within the framework of the theory of latent variables, it is shown that the developed questionnaire can be used as a measuring tool to analyze the influence of the studied factors on the quality of life of patients after prosthetics. Due to the use of four-factor analysis of variance, the accuracy of statistical analysis has been improved and the statistical significance of four sources of variance has been revealed. Based on the results of statistical analysis, recommendations on the choice of prosthetics method have been developed. 

Conclusion. A multidimensional analysis of the studied factors affecting the quality of life of patients after dental prosthetics was carried out. The quality of life of patients increases statistically significantly after prosthetics. Due to the use of a four-factor model of variance analysis, the precision of assessments of the quality of life of patients has been improved. The prosthetics method (D1) is recommended for women, the prosthetics method (D3) is recommended for men. The obtained results are recommended to be used in practice.

1. Oral health 2020. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health (accessed 18.06.2024).

2. Chizhmakov E.A., Zherebtsov E.G., Galankina M.A., Arutyunov A.S. An immediate prosthesis with a printed dentition made of polymethylmethacrylate and a base of poly-ethylene terephthalate: a clinical case. Klinicheskaya stomatologiya = Clinical Dentistry. 2023;26(3):100–109. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37988/1811-153X_2023_3_100

3. Frolova E.V., Turusheva A.V., Trezubov V.N., Rozov R.A., Kabanov M.Yu., Gvetadze R.Sh., Arutyunov S.D. Healthy aging and the state of the oral cavity. Rossiiskii semeinyi vrach = Russian Family Doctor. 2023;27(1):5–14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17816/RFD312945

4. Arutyunov S.D., Polyakov D.I., Stepanov A.G., Muslov S.A. Digital study of the quality of life of patients with temporary epithesis of the auricle for the period of osseointegration of cranial implants. Sovremennaya stomatologiya = Modern Dentistry. 2020;(4):76–82. (In Russ.)

5. Campos L.A., Peltomäki T., Marôco J., Campos J.A.D.B. Use of Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) in Different Contexts. What Is Being Measured? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 2021;(8):13412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413412

6. Pommer B. Use of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) in Clinical Oral Implant Research. Journal of Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Epidemiology. 2013;1(3):3–10.

7. Melbye E.L. Dimensional structure of the OHIP-14 and associations with self-report oral health-related variables in home-dwelling Norwegians aged 70+. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2023;81(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2022.2083674

8. Novik A.A., Ionova T.I. Guidelines for the study of quality of life in medicine. 4th ed. Moscow: RAEN; 2021. 664 p. (In Russ.)

9. Ionova T.I. Algorithm for choosing a questionnaire for quality of life research. Vestnik Mezhnatsional’nogo tsentra issledovaniya kachestva zhizni = Bulletin of the International Center for Quality of Life Research. 2023;(41–42):115–119. (In Russ.)

10. Balin K.D., Borisova E.G., Fedichkina M.K. Assessment of the quality of life of patients after dental interventions (literature review). Problemy stomatologii = Problems of Dentistry. 2021;17(1):5–11. (In Russ.)

11. Chiu E.C., Hsueh I.P., Hsieh C.H., Hsieh C.L.Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in people who abuse heroin. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2014;113(4):234–241.

12. Duale J.M.J., Patel Y.A., Wu J., Hyde T.P. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Baseline Ohip-Edent Scores. Review. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2018;26(1):17–23. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01753Duale07

13. Fayers P.M., Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcomes. 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. 648 p.

14. Arutyunov S.D., Muslov S.A., Ruzuddinov N.S., Chizhmakov E.A., Grachev D.I., Kharakh Ya.N., Nersesov G.S. Quality of life of patients with complete loss of teeth and psychometric properties of the OHIP-20 DG questionnaire. Part 2. Monitoring at the stages of dental orthopedic treatment. Rossiiskii stomatologicheskii zhurnal = Russian Dental Journal. 2021;25(5):399–408. (In Russ.) https:// doi.org/10.17816/1728-2802-2021-25-5-399-408

15. Muslov S.A., Mayev I.V., Arutyunov S.D., Pertsov S.S., Maslak A.A., Solodov A.A. Measurement of quality of life in medicine based on classical and modern theory. Moscow: Practical medicine; 2023. 216 p. (In Russ.)

16. Andrich D. A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory. Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. 482 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-13-7496-8

17. Bond T., Yan Z., Heene M. Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Routledge. New York; 2020. 348 p.

18. Engelhard G., Wang J. Rasch Models for Solving Measurement Problems: Invariant Measurement in the Social Sciences. Singapore: Sage; 2021. 146 p.

19. Maslak A.A. Theory and practice of measuring latent variables in education: theory and practice. Moscow: Yurayt; 2024. 255 p. (In Russ.)

20. Maslak A.A., Korobko A.I. Method of forming linear scales for evaluating learning outcomes with control of the adequacy of indicator variables. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Upravlenie, vychislitel’naya tekhnika, informatika. Meditsinskoe priborostroenie = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: Control, Computer Engineering, Information Science. Medical Instruments Engineering. 2023;13(4):131–147. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-1536-2023-13-4-131-147

21. Maslak A.A., Korobko A.I. Statistical analysis of the aggregated ranking of Russian universities as a measuring tool. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Sistemnyi analiz i informatsionnye tekhnologii. = Bulletin of the Voronezh State University. Series: System Analysis and Information Technologies. 2023:(l):68–79. (In Russ.)

22. Andrich D., Sheridan B., Luo G. RUMM2020: Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models software and manual. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2005. 154 p.