Research on Chinese orthodontic specialists' subjective evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome / 中华口腔医学杂志

ABSTRACT

<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>