Evaluation of the quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after prosthodontic rehabilitation: A cross-sectional study
Neelanjali Matapathi1, Vidya K Shenoy1, Ramya Shenoy2, Glynis Anita Miranda1, Mithun Upadhya1, Avinash Mehendale1, Blessy Bangera1, K Kamalaksh Shenoy3
1 Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, A.J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India 2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, MAHE Manipal, Mangalore, Karnataka, India 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, A.J. Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
Correspondence Address:
Vidya K Shenoy, Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, A.J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_889_20
|
Context: Oral cancer surgery leads to hard- and soft-tissue loss which can affect the quality of life of the individuals. Maxillofacial prosthodontics focuses on optimizing the disrupted oral function of individuals whose rehabilitation will serve as a psychosocial therapy.
Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) after the maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation following cancer resection surgery.
Settings and Design: The sample comprised 15 oral cancer patients who agreed to maxillofacial prosthesis (MFP) after surgery.
Materials and Methods: Oral function and OHRQoL were evaluated pre- and postmaxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. The masticatory function, swallowing function, and articulatory function were evaluated. The OHRQoL was evaluated by OHIPJ-14 questionnaire. Descriptive methods such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were calculated.
Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the results.
Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between prescores and postscores of dysphagia score (P = 0.05) and OHIP-J14 score (P = 0.00). No statistically significant differences were evident in perceived chewing ability (P = 0.29) and intelligibility score (P = 0.43). A statistically significant difference was evident in the prescore and postscore of OHIP-J14 subscales: functional limitations (P < 0.05), physical pain (P < 0.05), psychological discomfort (P < 0.05), physical disability (P < 0.05), psychological disability (P < 0.05), and handicap (P < 0.05), before and after maxillofacial prosthetic treatment except for social disability (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: OHRQoL significantly improved with maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation.
|