Objectives: To assess and compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of orthodontic patients who had and had not undergone micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) during orthodontic space closure. Methods: 27 orthodontic patients with fixed appliance who are undergoing orthodontic space closure with Niti coil springs were given the validated short version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (Malaysia) Questionnaire (S-OHIP) which was available in both Bahasa Melayu and English, containing 14 items. 17 patients underwent MOPs (MOP group) while 10 patients did not (control). Additive scores (ADD) were calculated by summing the response codes for the 14 items and simple count scores (SC) were calculated by a count of the number of items reported as occurring ‘quite often’ and ‘very often’. Results: A total of 24 patients responded to the questionnaire, with a response rate of 88.9%, and they comprised of 79.2% females and 20.8% males. There is no significant difference in the mean ADD (p = 0.347) and mean SC (p = 0.446) across both groups. Conclusions: The reported oral health-related quality of life is similar for orthodontic patients who did and did not undergo MOPs.
Objective: To determine the prevalence of bimaxillary protrusion in general and the prevalence of skeletal Class I and dental Class I bimaxillary protrusion/ proclination among orthodontic patients attending postgraduate orthodontic clinic at Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Sungai Buloh, Malaysia. Materials and Methods: This is a cross sectional study which was carried out in two stages. The first part involves a random selection of 100 extra-oral profile photographs taken from postgraduate orthodontic residents’ patient list. The photographs were taken using Canon digital SLR camera EOS 70D with macro lens EF 100mm (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) with patients in natural head position. The photographs were visually analysed for its bimaxillary protrusion features by two operators. The second part comprises of analyses of extra-oral profile photographs as well as intra-oral photographs of right buccal segment view which was conducted in two separate sittings. In the first sitting, five assessors analysed 259 extra - and intra-oral photographs followed by 40 photographs assessed in the second sitting for skeletal and dental Class I bimaxillary protrusion/ proclination. Statistical analysis for Kappa score was performed to assess the agreement between assessors using SPSS version 23 and Stata version 13. Results: The first part of the study showed an average prevalence of 34% with bimaxillary protrusion in 100 orthodontic patients. Whilst in the second part, prevalence of skeletal and dental Class I bimax ranging from 28 -33 per cent and 38-40 per cent respectively with very good and good inter-reliability agreement for both component. Conclusion: The prevalence of bimaxillary protrusion in general among UiTM orthodontic patients was found to range from 31 per cent to 37 per cent. Whilst the prevalence of skeletal and dental Class I bimax ranging from 28-33 per cent and 38-40 per cent respectively.