Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) outcomes at the time of orthodontic appliance removal and three months into retention


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 36 , ISSUE 1 (May 2020) > List of articles

Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) outcomes at the time of orthodontic appliance removal and three months into retention

Jared Monk / Peter Fowler * / William Murray Thomson

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 20-26, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-003

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 20-July-2021



Background: Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) has become an important measure of orthodontic treatment outcome. However, it is unclear how long OHRQoL benefits manifest themselves following the removal of the orthodontic appliances.

Objectives: To investigate differences in OHRQoL recorded at the time of orthodontic appliance removal and three months into retention.

Setting and sample: Described is a prospective outcome study of 59 consecutive participants treated in a hospital-based clinic between 2015 and 2018. The patients comprised three groups: those who received orthognathic surgery (N = 15), those who had an orofacial cleft (N = 30) and those who had no-surgery/no-cleft (N = 14). Each individual completed an age-specific OHRQoL questionnaire that categorised them as either an adolescent (N = 37) or an adult (N = 22) participant.

Method: The OHRQoL questionnaires were completed at the time of appliance removal (T0) and again three months into retention (T1). The Child Perceptions Questionnaires (CPQ11-14-ISF8 and P-CPQ8) were used for adolescent participants and their parent/caregiver, respectively, while the short-form Oral Health Impact Questionnaire (OHIP-14) was used for the adults.

Results: The OHIP-14, CPQ11-14-ISF8 and P-CPQ8 detected improvements in overall and domain scores between T0 and T1 for all patient groups. Moderate effect sizes (0.2–0.7) were observed in all the domain, overall and group mean scores.

Conclusions: Post-treatment orthodontic OHRQoL outcomes improve over the three-month period following appliance removal. The use of these measures should be delayed beyond the immediate time of appliance removal to allow the benefits of orthodontic treatment to be appreciated.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Zhang M, McGrath C, Hägg U. The impact of malocclusion and its treatment on quality of life: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16:381-7.

2. Tuominen ML, Tuominen RJ. Factors associated with subjective need for orthodontic treatment among Finnish university applicants. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:106-10.

3. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res 2011;90:1264-70.

4. Mehta A, Kaur G. Oral health-related quality of life—the concept, its assessment and relevance in dental research and education. Indian J Dent 2011;2:26-9.

5. Clark E, Thomson WM, Foster Page L. Improving oral-healthrelated quality of life: findings from an in-school toothbrushing programme. N Z Dent J 2018;114:100-6.

6. Locker D, Allen F. What do measures of ‘oral health‐related quality of life’ measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:401-11.

7. Healey DL, Gauld RD, Thomson WM. Treatment-associated changes in malocclusion and oral health-related quality of life: A 4-year cohort study. Am J Ortho Dent Orthop 2016;150:811-7.

8. Antoun JS, Fowler PV, Jack HC, Farella M. Oral health-related quality of life changes in standard, cleft and surgery patients after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:568-75.

9. Nichols GAL, Antoun JS, Fowler PV, Al-Ani AH, Farella M. Longterm changes in oral health-related quality of life of standard, cleft, and surgery patients after orthodontic treatment: A longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:224-31.

10. Cons N, Jenny J, Kohout FJ. DAI: the dental aesthetic index. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, 1986.

11. Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oralhealth-related quality of life. J Dent Res 2002;81:459-63.

12. Thomson WM, Foster Page LA, Gaynor WN, Malden PE. Shortform versions of the Parental-Caregivers Perceptions Questionnaire and the Family Impact Scale. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41:441-50.

13. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90.

14. Thomson WM, Foster Page LA, Robinson PG, Do LG, Traebert J, Mohamed AR et al.Psychometric assessment of the short-form Child Perceptions Questionnaire: an international collaborative study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2016;44:549-56.

15. Malden PE, Thomson WM, Jokovic A, Locker D. Changes in parentassessed oral health-related quality of life among young children following dental treatment under general anaesthetic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2008;36:108-17.

16. Thomson WM, Broder HL. Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents. Pediatr Clin North Am 2018,65:1073- 84.