Malmö University Publications
System update
On Tuesday, August 18th, between 12-1pm, a planned system update of DiVA will take place. During this time, DiVA will not be available.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale in prosthodontic patients
Ctr Oral Rehab, SE-58185 Linköping, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1665-7854
Univ Minnesota, Dept Diagnost & Biol Sci, Minneapolis, MN USA; Univ Minnesota, Div Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Minneapolis, MN USA.
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9638-4648
2010 (English)In: International Journal of Prosthodontics, ISSN 0893-2174, E-ISSN 1139-9791, Vol. 23, no 3, p. 257-262Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES)-an instrument assessing self-reported orofacial esthetics in prosthodontic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OES has seven items addressing direct esthetic impacts in the orofacial region, as well as an eighth global assessment item. The response format was a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied with appearance, respectively). OES summary scores ranged from 0 (worst score) to 70 (best score). Test-retest reliability (n = 27) and internal consistency (n = 119) were assessed. Content validation (asking patients about their satisfaction with the questionnaire content, n = 119) and discriminative validation (comparing OES scores between patients and healthy controls, n = 119) were performed. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating patients' own OES scores (n = 29) with ratings from a consensus expert group (n = 4) and with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) esthetic-item summary score (n = 119). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for the OES scores (intraclass correlation coefficient = .96). Internal consistency was satisfactory for esthetically impaired patients (n = 27, Cronbach alpha = .86). Patients rated their satisfaction with the questionnaire content as 7.8 +/- 1.3 units on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). OES scores discriminated esthetically impaired patients (31.4 units) from healthy controls (45.9 units, P < .001). OES scores correlated well with other measures of the same construct (r = .43 for patients' own assessment with an assessment by experts using the OES, r = -.72 for a correlation with the OHIP's three esthetic-related items). CONCLUSIONS: The OES, developed especially for prosthodontic patients, exhibited good score reliability and validity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Quintessence , 2010. Vol. 23, no 3, p. 257-262
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-6169ISI: 000278617200013PubMedID: 20552093Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77955858262Local ID: 10981OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-6169DiVA, id: diva2:1403109
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2026-02-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

PubMedScopus

Authority records

Larsson, PernillaNilner, KristerList, Thomas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Larsson, PernillaNilner, KristerList, Thomas
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
International Journal of Prosthodontics
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 7062 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf