Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and validation of the German version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to develop the German version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-G) and to assess its psychometric properties.

Methods

The OES is an eight-item instrument with seven items directly addressing esthetic impacts of the orofacial region and an eighth item for a global assessment. It applies an 11-point ordinal rating scale, with summary scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 70 (best). The original OES items were translated into German using a forward–backward method. A de novo development of German items (n = 21 patients) and a cross-cultural adaptation after pilot testing (n = 15 patients) established content validity. Internal consistency and construct validity (structural, convergent, known-groups) of the OES-G were assessed in a sample of 165 prosthodontic patients. The OES was applied in 42 patients on two occasions, with a temporal distance of 2–4 weeks apart to determine test–retest reliability.

Results

Internal consistency of the OES-G was considered as satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha 0.94; average inter-item correlation 0.64). Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 (95 % confidence interval 0.92–0.98) indicated excellent test–retest reliability. Correlation matrix and exploratory factor analysis provided support for unidimensionality of the measured construct. The OES-G summary score was correlated with the patients’ global assessment of their esthetics (r = 0.87) and external ratings of the expert group (r = 0.55) and discriminated patients with treatment need (39.4 points) from patients without (58.4 points; p < 0.001) and with a large effect size.

Conclusion

The OES-G has good psychometric properties and is a valuable instrument for the assessment of self-perceived orofacial esthetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. John MT, Reissmann DR, Feuerstahler L et al (2014) Exploratory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:635–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. John MT, Feuerstahler L, Waller N et al (2014) Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:644–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patzer GL (1997) Improving self-esteem by improving physical attractiveness. J Esthet Dent 9:44–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eli I, Bar-Tal Y, Kostovetzki I (2001) At first glance: social meanings of dental appearance. J Public Health Dent 61:150–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126:390–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henson ST, Lindauer SJ, Gardner WG, Shroff B, Tufekci E, Best AM (2011) Influence of dental esthetics on social perceptions of adolescents judged by peers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kerosuo H, Hausen H, Laine T, Shaw WC (1995) The influence of incisal malocclusion on the social attractiveness of young adults in Finland. Eur J Orthod 17:505–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L (2007) Patients’ satisfaction with dental esthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 138:805–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pietila T, Pietila I (1996) Dental appearance and orthodontic services assessed by 15-16-year-old adolescents in eastern Finland. Community Dent Health 13:139–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis LG, Ashworth PD, Spriggs LS (1998) Psychological effects of aesthetic dental treatment. J Dent 26:547–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van’t Hof MA (1998) Assessment of dental and facial aesthetics in adolescents. Eur J Orthod 20:399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolfart S, Thormann H, Freitag S, Kern M (2005) Assessment of dental appearance following changes in incisor proportions. Eur J Oral Sci 113:159–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2007) Smile attractiveness. Self-perception and influence on personality. Angle Orthod 77:759–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Slade GD, Spencer AJ (1994) Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 11:3–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehl C, Kern M, Freitag-Wolf S, Wolfart M, Brunzel S, Wolfart S (2009) Does the oral health impact profile questionnaire measure dental appearance? Int J Prosthodont 22:87–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong AH, Cheung CS, McGrath C (2007) Developing a short form of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) for dental aesthetics: OHIP-aesthetic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:64–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mandall NA, McCord JF, Blinkhorn AS, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD (2000) Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14-15-year-old Asian and Caucasian children in greater Manchester. Eur J Orthod 22:175–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Klages U, Claus N, Wehrbein H, Zentner A (2006) Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur J Orthod 28:103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolfart S, Quaas AC, Freitag S, Kropp P, Gerber WD, Kern M (2006) General well-being as an important co-factor of self-assessment of dental appearance. Int J Prosthodont 19:449–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, Bondemark L, List T (2010) Development of an orofacial esthetic scale in prosthodontic patients. Int J Prosthodont 23:249–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, List T (2010) Reliability and validity of the orofacial esthetic scale in prosthodontic patients. Int J Prosthodont 23:257–262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. John MT, Larsson P, Nilner K, Bandyopadhyay D, List T (2012) Validation of the orofacial esthetic scale in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:135

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Larsson P, John MT, Nilner K, List T (2014) Normative values for the oro-facial esthetic scale in sweden. J Oral Rehabil 41:148–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pett M, Lackey N, Sullivan J (2003) Making sense of factor analysis—the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Catell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1:245–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Streiner D, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  33. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314:572

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Clark LA, Watson D (1995) Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 7:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Persic S, Milardovic S, Mehulic K, Celebic A (2011) Psychometric properties of the Croatian version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale and suggestions for modification. Int J Prosthodont 24:523–533

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhao Y, He SL (2013) Development of the Chinese version of the Oro-facial Esthetic Scale. J Oral Rehabil 40:670–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R (1992) Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 45:1341–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. John MT, Reissmann DR, Feuerstahler L et al (2014) Factor analyses of the oral health impact profile—overview and studied population. J Prosthodont Res 58:26–34

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr. Keith Wyman for his participation in the translation process, Ms. Ioanna Michelaki, Ms. Argyro Koupa, Ms. Jutta Meyer, and Ms. Marina Buchmann for their help with conducting the study, and Ms. Andrea Medina (University of Minnesota) for her valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Daniel R Reissmann & Ghazal Aarabi

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Daniel R Reissmann

  3. Zahnarztpraxis in der Feldstraße, Elmshorn, Germany

    Andreas W Benecke

  4. Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ira Sierwald

Authors
  1. Daniel R Reissmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas W Benecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghazal Aarabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ira Sierwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R Reissmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reissmann, D.R., Benecke, A.W., Aarabi, G. et al. Development and validation of the German version of the Orofacial Esthetic Scale. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1443–1450 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1365-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1365-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation