Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2019
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2019-4808-19 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>This study aimed to assess the prevalence, extent and severity of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics (<span>PIDA</span>)</p> <p>among Malaysian adolescents especially those with self-perceived malocclusion, and to determine if age and gender</p> <p>affected their <span>PIDA</span>. A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted on 12-17 year old</p> <p>schoolchildren from schools across Malaysia selected via a multi-stage sampling method. The questionnaire included the</p> <p>Malaysian Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics (Malaysian<span> PIDA</span>) questionnaire and the Aesthetic Component of the</p> <p>Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (<span>IOTN-AC</span>). The Malaysian<span> PIDA </span>measured four domains: (Dental Self Confidence,</p> <p>6 items; Social Impact, 8 items; Psychological Impact, 6 items; and Aesthetic Concern, 2 items) to assess impacts on</p> <p>the oral health-related quality of life specific to malocclusion. While the <span>IOTN-AC</span> comprised a 10-point photographic</p> <p>scale to assess self-perceived malocclusion. Data analysis using <span>SPSS </span>version 20 was involved using complete data on</p> <p>901 participants. The prevalence of <span>PIDA</span> was 90.0% while prevalence associated with self-perceived malocclusion was</p> <p>96.0%. Impact of dental aesthetics was highest on the psychological wellbeing of the adolescents, followed by their</p> <p>self-confidence. In terms of the extent of impact, 14.0% reported significant impact on all four domains and 19.2% were</p> <p>associated with self-perceived malocclusion. The prevalence of impacts was higher in younger adolescents and females.</p> <p>In terms of the extent and severity of impacts, younger adolescents reported higher impacts but with small effect sizes,</p> <p>while differences between boys and girls were not significant.</p>