Comparative Analysis of OHIP Versions for Research on Temporomandibular Disorders

Background An international team has recommended assessing oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in four dimensions and using the Oral Health Impact Profile‐5 (OHIP‐5) for all oral health conditions. Objectives This study compared OHIP summary, domain, and dimension scores among individuals with no and different Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) symptoms, examined correlations across OHIP versions, and explored the use of OHIP‐5 for TMD research. Methods Young adults completed the Five TMD Symptoms (5Ts) screener and items from the OHIP‐49, OHIP‐14, OHIP‐5, and OHIP‐TMD. Participants were categorised into no (NT), intra‐articular (IT), pain‐related (PT), and combined (CT) TMD symptom groups. Data were analysed with the chi‐square test and nonparametric tests, including Spearman's correlation ( α = 0.05). Results The final sample consisted of 573 individuals (mean age 19.3 years [SD 1.3]; 82.6% women), of whom 64.0% reported NT, while 21.8%, 4.2%, and 10.0% had IT, PT, and CT symptoms, respectively. Significant differences in summary scores were consistent across participant groups (CT/PT/IT>NT; CT>IT) for all OHIP versions, though variations were observed in domain and dimension scores. Notably, no significant differences in the Psychosocial Impact dimension were identified for the OHIP‐5. Summary scores for the OHIP‐49 and OHIP‐14 were very strongly correlated with those for OHIP‐TMD, whereas the OHIP‐5 demonstrated a strong correlation ( r s = 0.86–0.94). Conclusions A four‐dimensional impact framework is suitable for use in TMD research. While the OHIP‐5 can evaluate overall OHRQoL, its substitution for OHIP‐14 or OHIP‐TMD should be considered only when brevity is prioritised over dimension‐specific assessment.