彰化縣國高中學生口腔健康狀況與生活品質相關研究

Investigated the association between the oral health conditions and the oral health-related quality of life among adolescent students in Changhua

許中生(Chung-Sheng Hsu)

指導教授 ： 謝天渝

高雄醫學大學/口腔醫學院/牙醫學研究所/碩士(2003年)

摘要

目的：評估彰化縣青少年口腔健康與健康相關生活品質情形，並探討口腔健康情況與健康相關生活品質之相關性。方法：以隨機方式自彰化縣國高中(職)學生中選出樣本，接受臨床口腔檢查(齲齒指數─DMFT、社區牙周指數─CPI)及相關生活品質問卷調查(整體健康相關生活品質量表─MOS SF-36、口腔健康相關生活品質量表─OHIP)。結果：共選出409名學生為研究樣本，全部樣本均完成口腔檢查與SF-36量表調查，僅有89.73%(367名)樣本完成OHIP量表調查。樣本中女性佔50.37%(206人)、高中(職)生佔44.01%(180人)、平均年齡為14.82歲±1.79歲、齲齒指數為4.33顆±3.83顆、牙周狀況異常(CPI≧1)者佔34.96%。檢定發現齲齒指數以女性、高中(職)者較差(高)。牙周健康狀況以高中(職)者、每日零用錢51元以上者、父母為國小(含)以下教育程度與父親職業為”農林漁牧”者較差。在SF-36量表方面，身體及心理構面得分為50.01分±5.21分、43.70分±8.68分；OHIP量表得分為68.07分±36.57分；兩個量表均顯示出女性、高中生之生活品質較差之情形。與口腔健康狀況做相關比較時，發現口腔健康狀況較差者其SF-36量表顯示之整體健康生活品質與OHIP顯示之口腔健康相關生活品質均較差。此外DMFT及CPI未顯示出與SF-36量表有顯著相關，僅DMFT顯示出與OHIP量表有顯著之相關性。結論：本研究之青少年其口腔健康狀況與健康相關生活品質同為男性優於女性、國中生優於高中生。在口腔健康狀況與健康相關生活品質之相關性方面，則顯示出OHIP量表優於SF-36量表，且OHIP量表顯示出較大之差異性與解釋變異量。此外更發現當受測者DMFT顆數增加時其OHIP得分亦同時增加(生活品質變差)之顯著趨勢。

關鍵字

整體健康生活品質 ； 口腔健康相關生活品質

並列摘要

Objectives: 1.Assess oral health conditions, 2.Evaluate study should be mentioned the perceived impact of oral health conditions, 3.Investigate association between the oral health conditions and the perceived impact of oral health conditions. Methods: Using the relationship of two measures of self-report outcome, the MOS SF-36 (36-items short form) scale and the OHIP (oral health impact profile) scale, and clinical indicators of oral health were carried out on adolescents in Changhua County Taiwan. Results: A random sample of 367(89.73%) adolescents completed the OHIP, and 409 of them completed the SF-36 and a clinical dental examination assessing DMFT and CPI. Participants averaged 14.82 (SD=1.79) years old; 50.37% were female; and 44.01% were high-school students. The mean DMFT was 4.33 (SD=3.83) and 34.96% of participants were found CPI≧1. Analyses of reporting participants found that female and high-school students had a higher DMFT. And high-school students with petty cash of NT$ 51 or more, and parents with only an elementary-education, and the father’s occupation as farming (or forestry or fishery or grazier) had poor CPI. For the PCS (physical component summary) and MCS (mental component summary) of SF-36 scale averaged 50.01 (SD=5.21) and 43.70 (SD=8.68) individually. For the scores of OHIP scale averaged 68.07 (SD=36.57). Analyses of reporting participants found that female and high-school students had poor general health quality of life on SF-36 as well as poor oral health quality of life on the OHIP. In addition, none of the SF-36 scale was significantly related to DMFT and CPI. The OHIP scale was consistently relate to DMFT-those with wore oral health reported more impacts. Conclusions: Those female and high school students presented that relative poor oral health conditions as well as poor health-related quality of life. Although the SF-36 and OHIP were correlated seemingly, the OHIP appears to be more associated with the impact of oral health conditions than the SF-36 among adolescents who reported low general and oral health quality of life. But the OHIP scale of the variance was explained better than SF-36. In addition, the most important finding was that participants with a higher DMFT index reported higher (greater impact) OHIP scores.

並列關鍵字

general health quality of life ； oral health quality of life

參考文獻

1. Sheiham A. Impact of dental treatment on the incidence of dental caries in children and adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 25: 104-12.

2. Lawrence HP, Leake JL. The U.S. Surgeon General’s report on oral health in America: A Canadian perspective. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67: 587-96.

3. Cohen LK, Jago JD. Toward the formulation of sociodental indicators. Int J Health Serv 1976; 6: 681-98.

4. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dentl Health 1988; 5: 3-18.

5. Chen MS, Hunter P. Oral health and quality of life in New Zealand: a Social Perspective. Soc Sci Med 1996; 43: 1213-22.