Cross-sectional study examines the impact of oral status on quality of life among Vietnamese students, indicating significant correlations with dental health.
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the determinants of oral status, quality of life, and the impact of oral status on quality of life among Vietnamese students. Materials and Methods: This cross‐sectional study was conducted on 550 students (355 males, 195 females) aged from 18 to 30 years at Viet Nam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Participants were clinically examined on dental, periodontal, and malocclusion conditions and were directly interviewed about the impact of oral status on their quality of life using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐14) questionnaire. Results: The overall rate of dental caries in the study sample was 62.4%, of which participants with ≤2 decayed teeth accounted for the majority (65.80%). Most participants had not lost teeth (83.10%) and had one tooth or fewer filled (69.60%). The mean OHIP‐14 total score was 13.04 ± 8.93. Among them, the discomfort domain had the highest mean score (3.05 ± 2.09) and functional limitation the lowest (0.97 ± 1.24). There was no relationship between the mean total OHIP‐14VN index and gender, age, tooth decay, or tooth filling ( p > 0.05); these factors only had a relationship in some specific components of OHIP‐14VN ( p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant relationship between the mean total OHIP‐14VN index and tooth loss, plaque index (PlI), bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket depth (PPD) index, and the index of orthodontic treatment need‐dental health component (IOTN‐DHC) ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study showed that students’ perception of quality of life was at a good level. The prevalence of participants with dental caries was classified as moderate. There was a clear relationship between the mean total OHIP‐14VN index and the specific component factors of OHIP‐14VN, with tooth loss and periodontal indicators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pham et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: