ABSTRACT
This study aimed to assess the reliability of experienced Chinese orthodontists in evaluating treatment outcome and to determine the correlations between three diagnostic information sources. Sixty-nine experienced Chinese orthodontic specialists each evaluated the outcome of orthodontic treatment of 108 Chinese patients. Three different information sources: study casts (SC), lateral cephalometric X-ray images (LX) and facial photographs (PH) were generated at the end of treatment for 108 patients selected randomly from six orthodontic treatment centers throughout China. Six different assessments of treatment outcome were made by each orthodontist using data from the three information sources separately and in combination. Each assessment included both ranking and grading for each patient. The rankings of each of the 69 judges for the 108 patients were correlated with the rankings of each of the other judges yielding 13 873 Spearman rs values, ranging from -0.08 to +0.85. Of these, 90% were greater than 0.4, showing moderate-to-high consistency among the 69 orthodontists. In the combined evaluations, study casts were the most significant predictive component (R(2)=0.86, P<0.000 1), while the inclusion of lateral cephalometric films and facial photographs also contributed to a more comprehensive assessment (R(2)=0.96, P<0.000 1). Grading scores for SC+LX and SC+PH were highly significantly correlated with those for SC+LX+PH (r(SC+LX)vs.(SC+LX+PH)=0.96, r(SC+PH)vs.(SC+LX+PH)=0.97), showing that either SC+LX or SC+PH is an excellent substitute for all three combined assessment.
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Female , Humans , Male , Cephalometry , Reference Standards , China , Models, Dental , Reference Standards , Esthetics, Dental , Malocclusion, Angle Class I , Therapeutics , Malocclusion, Angle Class II , Therapeutics , Malocclusion, Angle Class III , Therapeutics , Orthodontics , Reference Standards , Peer Review, Health Care , Reference Standards , Photography , Reference Standards , Reproducibility of Results , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To analyze the results of multiple Chinese orthodontic specialists' subjective evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome, to investigate the relevance of different experiment items and to explore the weight of each monomial material.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>As a randomized clinical trial, with six orthodontic treatment centers and Angle's classification being regarded as two stratification factors, it contained 108 cases with integrity data, which was random extracted from 2383 cases that received orthodontic treatment in six orthodontic treatment centers during the past five years, gathering post-treatment study casts, cephalometrics and photographs of 48 cases as the research subject. Similarly taking Angle's classification as a stratification factor, 108 cases were randomly divided into 9 groups. The randomization of sampling and grouping were both generated by a pseudo-random number generator. According to the monomial and combined subjects, 69 orthodontic specialists were regarded as the raters to rank the 12 cases in each group, and to judge whether the case was qualified.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Correlation analysis: the Spearman r between Post-M + C and Post-M + C + P and the Spearman r between Post-M + P and Post-M + C + P were both greater than 0.950. The Spearman r between Post-M and Post-P and the Spearman r between Post-M and Post-C were about 0.300. The Spearman r between Post-P and Post-C was 0.505. Regression analysis: the linear regression results: M + C = 0.782M + 0.308C - 0.150, M + P = 0.804M + 0.233P - 0.091, M + C + P = 0.764M + 0.243P + 0.131C - 0.291. The r(2) of above three models was greater than 0.9.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>It was applicable to use M + C and M + P instead of M + C + P. Study casts could not replace cephalometrics or photographs when doing subjective evaluation. Cephalometrics and photographs could not substitute for each other either. In the combined materials evaluation, model accounted for the largest percentage. Based on the regression model, for the greater part, the integration of several monomial materials could replace the combined material assessment effectively.</p>
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Young Adult , Asian People , Cephalometry , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Malocclusion , Therapeutics , Orthodontics, Corrective , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>To evaluate the effect of shade guide training box and shade guide training software on shade matching ability of observers when used separately. To find out the difference between two training plans when the two training methods were used in combination, and to provide information on shade matching training system.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Sixty-two postgraduate dental students who specialized in prosthodontics with 1 to 5 year clinical experience were enrolled in this study. At base line, each participant were asked to match 7 standard shade tabs which have been randomly chosen from Vita 3D-Master shade guide and 7 intermediate shade tabs from Vita bleached guide 3D-Master. Then the subjects were allocated to 2 groups [Toothguide Training Box (TTB) group and Toothguide Training (TT) group] according to the baseline data. Participants in group TTB received training session once a week for 3 weeks, while those in group TT received TT training session once a week for 3 weeks. All participants took a middle term shade-matching test. Then the two groups exchange the training methods and repeat the whole process, a final test was given to each participant. The elapsed time and number of accurate shade matching were recorded for each training session. Wilcoxon signed ranks test and ANOVA were used in data analysis.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were no significant differences in the number of accurate shade matching (standard shade tab and the sum) between group TTB (4.4 +/- 1.3 and 5.3 +/- 1.6) and TT (4.0 +/- 1.4 and 4.9 +/- 1.5) in the middle term test with higher value found in group TTB. In the final test, the number of accurate shade matching (standard shade tab and the sum) in group TT (4.9 +/- 0.8 and 6.4 +/- 0.8) was higher than that in group TTB (4.7 +/- 1.1 and 5.8 +/- 0.9), but significant difference was found only when the sum number of accurate shade matching was compared between the two groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between data from middle term test and from final test in group TTB; while in group TT, the number of accurate shade matching in the final test was significantly increased compared with that in the middle term test (P < 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>When used in combination, TT training followed by TTB training is recommended.</p>