• A. Y. Kordiyak Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine
  • R. R. Bratus-Hrynkiv Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine
Keywords: overdentures, oral health, dental profile questionnaire, quality of life.


Introduction. Quality of life, objective assessment criterion of which is level of human’s needs and interests satisfaction, is primarily connected with health status. This is why so called “health-related quality of life” is closely associated with patient’s well-being and satisfaction of those aspects of life, that are impacted by disease or treatment process. During the study of oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL, 1996), most authors take the OHIP (Oral Health Impact Profile, G.D. Slade, A.J. Spencer, 1994) approach as a basis, such as OHIP-EDENT (Short Version). Due to the fact, other methods of quality of life assessment are not widely used in dental practice, and it is important to develop new approaches in quality of life study, combined with prosthetic treatment results, considering the appropriate indicators of oral health.

The aim of this study is to conduct a personalized dental health indicators assessment reflecting patients’ quality of life after restoration of mandibular dental arch with overdentures.

Materials and methods. Main group (MG) comprised 23(54,8%) female patients and 19 (45,2%) males ones (n=42) aged 56-89, whom mandibular overdentures with ball attachments were constructed. Comparison group (CG) consisted of 17(47,2%) women and 19(52.8 %) men (n=36) aged 57-76, who have been using first-timely constructed complete removable mandibular dentures for three years. After use of the Dental Profile Questionnaire, and after detailed anamnestic study, the number of patients’ of both groups responses about possible unfavourable symptoms in use of dental prostheses and the mean value of frequency of those symptoms (1- sometimes, 2- often, 3- mainly) were estimated. Statistical processing of data obtained was performed by standard methods of variation statistics using Statistica 6.0 Program.

Results and discussion. The subjective component of our treatment results evaluation of in-depth analysis, after all reflected in extended description of the clinical cases in MG patients development of the current disease — significant loss of teeth with mandibular single remaining teeth / roots (K08.9 according to ICD-10) indicated that quality of life level of these individuals has a close connection with their oral health. According to the overall subjective evaluation of prosthetic treatment results after answering 14 patient’s oral health- related questions, the number of reports of adverse events was markedly different -22.7% in MG patients after 12 months of observation vs. 77.3% of CG patients, and statistically significant (p <0.05) - the decrease in the average score of their frequency.

Thus, it can be argued, that in the MG patients satisfaction with the treatment results, that reflected the quality of life level, associated with oral health, was notably higher, than in the CG patiens. So, the dentures were identified applicable (pp.1-6) by 90.9% of MG patients vs. 54.6% of CG patients, accompanying signs (pp.7-12) were positively evaluated by 90.1% vs. 69.0%, and subjective well-being (pp.13-14) was acheived in 90.5% vs. 63.9% of patients in these groups.

Conclusions. Results of the research have defined the improvement of all the 14 studied oral health indicators in patients of the main group after 1 year of the examination compared with the previous data after 1 and 6 months of mandibular overdentures use. Patients’ satisfaction with treatment results, reflecting the quality of life level, associated with oral health, confirms the higher efficiency of overdentures use compared to complete removable dentures in mandibular dental arch restoration.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Vasyl'jev VP, Gonchar MM, Nilova LV. Metodyka ocinky jakosti zhyttja Vsesvitn'oi' organizacii' ohorony zdorov’ja: ukrai'ns'ka versija. Za nauk. red. S.V.Phidenko. Dnipropetrovs'k ; 2001. 58 s. (Ukrainian).

2. Tretjak NM, Basova OV, Gorjainova NV, Koval' AI, Anoshyna MJu, Mnyshenko VM, Jagovdyk MV. Jakist' zhyttja ljudyny: sutnist' ponjattja. Gematologija i perelyvannja krovi. 2014;37:238–43. (Ukrainian).

3. Sichkaruk IM, Jagens'kyj AV. Ocinka jakosti zhyttja u suchasnij medychnij praktyci. Internal Medicine. 2007;3(3):57–62. (Ukrainian).

4. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):645–9.

5. Decyk OZ, Kol'cova NI, Samotovka OL. Zadovolenist' medychnoju dopomogoju jak kryterij jakosti i'i' nadannja. Medychni perspektyvy. 2010;15(1):71–4. (Ukrainian).

6. Komar VS. Zadovolenist' pacijentiv jak pokaznyk jakosti vidnovnogo likuvannja v sanatorno-kurortnyh umovah. Ukrai'na.Zdorov’ja nacii'. 2016;4:176–81. (Ukrainian).

7. Abreu LG. An Overview of Oral Health Related Quality of Life. Oral Heal Case Reports. 2015;1(1):1–3.

8. Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): Reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(60):1-7.

9. Hernández JF, Díaz FCA, Vilchis VMC. Oral Health Related Quality of Life. In: Emerging Trends in Oral Health Sciences and Dentistry. IntechOpen. 2015. p. 691–715.

10. Alzoubi EE, Hariri R, Attard AN. Oral Health Related Quality of Life Impact in Dentistry. Journal of Dental Health, Oral Disorders & Therapy. 2017;6(6):183–8.

11. Bennadi D, Reddy C. Oral health related quality of life. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry. 2013;3(1):1–6.

12. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic medicine 2002;64(2):258–66.

13. Topp C, Ostergaard S, Sondergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2015;84(3):167–76.

14. Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: A practical guide. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2009;23(4):362–70.

15. Lapyna NV, Skorykov JuV. Pokaznyky jakosti zhyttja jak subjektyvna ocinka funkcional'nogo stanu pacijentiv do ta pislja ortopedychnogo likuvannja. Nauchnыe vedomosty: Medycyna Farmacyja. 2011;10(105):223–7. (Ukrainian).

16. Al Deeb M, Abduljabbar T, Vohra F, Zafar MS, Hussain M. Assessment of factors influencing oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients with removable dental prosthesis. Pakistan Journal Of Medical Sciences. 2020;36(2):213–8.

17. Costa FO, Miranda Cota LO, Pereira Lages EJ, Vilela Câmara GC, Cortelli SC, Cortelli JR, et al. Oral Impact on Daily Performance, Personality Traits, and Compliance in Periodontal Maintenance Therapy. Journal of Periodontology 2011;82(8):1146-54

18. Jenei Á, Sándor J, Hegedűs C. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life After Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Longitudinal Study With the OHIP Questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;10(13):99.

19. Zaid A, Baker SR, Shahrbaf S, Martin N, Vettore MV. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life After Prosthodontic Treatment for Patients With Partial Edentulism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019;121(1):59–68.

20. Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2011; 9(1):8.

21. Fastovec' OO, Sapal'ov SO. Porivnjal'na kliniko-funkcional'na ocinka efektyvnosti protezuvannja hvoryh z povnoju vidsutnistju zubi v na nyzhnij shhelepi povnymy znimnymy protezamy z oporoju na implantaty. Visnyk stomatologii'. 2019;1:63–7. (Ukrainian).

22. Janishen IV, Andrijenko KJu, Berezhna OO, Pogorila AV, Salija LG. Ocinka efektyvnosti ortopedychnogo likuvannja pacijentiv zi znimnymy konstrukcijamy zubnyh proteziv na pidstavi danyh jakosti zhyttja. Eksperymental'na ta klinichna stomatologija. 2018;3(4):40–6. (Ukrainian).

23. Montero J, Bravo M, Lõpez-Valverde A. Development of a specific indicator of the well-being of wearers of removable dentures. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2011;39(6):515–24.

24. Preciado A, Del Río J, Lynch C, Castillo-Oyagüe R. A new, short, specific questionnaire (QoLIP-10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers. Journal of Dentistry. 2013;41(9):753–63.

25. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: What, why, how, and future implications. Journal of Dental Research. 2011. R. 1264–70.

26. Bourgeois DM, Llodra JC, Nordblad A, Pitts NB. Report of the EGOHID I Project Selecting a coherent set of indicators for monitoring and evaluating oral health in Europe: Criteria, methods and results from the EGOHID I project. Community Dental Health Journal. 2008;25(1):4–10.

27. World Health Organization. Oral Health Surveys - Basic Methods 5th edition. WHO, 2013. 125 p.
How to Cite
Kordiyak, A. Y., & Bratus-Hrynkiv, R. R. (2021). QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT IN PATIENTS AFTER PROSTHETIC TREATMENT USING THE DENTAL PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE. Ukrainian Dental Almanac, (1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.31718/2409-0255.1.2021.08