[Validation of subjective and objective evaluation methods for orthodontic treatment outcome].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the correlations between objective measurements of 108 finished orthodontic cases and subjective assessments made by 69 orthodontic specialists, to explore the statistically significant measuring categories of cast and cephalogram and to validate the regression model. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 108 cases was drawn from the large sample of 2 383 patients who finished orthodontic treatment between July 2006 and August 2008 in six orthodontic treatment centers around China. For each patient, the post-treatment information sources evaluated in this study included standardized plaster study casts and a lateral cephalometric X-ray image. These information sources were evaluated both singly and in combination by a panel of 69 orthodontic specialists. The average subjective grading scores of 69 orthodontists were regarded as the gold standard. Six examiners used the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and American board of orthodontics-objective grading system (ABO-OGS) to measure all the study casts respectively and three other examiners measured all the lateral cephalometric X-ray images by using customized software. The objective measuring data were correlated with the gold standard. The correlations between the objective measurement and the subjective evaluation were assessed, the statistically significant measuring categories of cast and cephalogram were explored and the regression model was validated. RESULTS: The ABO-OGS scores of "occlusal relationship" correlated most strongly with the subjective scores of cast (r=0.655, P<0.01), and the secondarily correlated category with those were the PAR scores of "overjet" (r=0.525, P<0.01). The proclination of the lower incisors correlated most strongly with the subjective scores of cephalogram (r=0.446, P<0.01), and the secondarily correlated category with those was the protrusion of the lower lips (r=0.436, P<0.01). Nine components were predictive for the post-treatment model and lateral ephalometric film (Post-M+C) outcome: alignment (ABO-OGS), occlusal relationship (ABO-OGS), interproximal contact(ABO-OGS), L1/NB°, overjet (PAR), SNB°, occlusal contacts (ABO-OGS), U1/SN2° and centerline (PAR). These 9 components accounted for 72% of the variability in the average subjective grading scores. CONCLUSION: The objective regression model could replace the averaged opinion of Chinese orthodontic experts effectively, making objective assessment of orthodontic treatment outcome for Chinese patients.

Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients.

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontics in China has developed rapidly, but there is no standard index of treatment outcomes. We assessed the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) for the classification of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients. METHODS: We randomly selected 108 patients who completed treatment between July 2005 and September 2008 in 6 orthodontic treatment centers across China. Sixty-nine experienced Chinese orthodontists made subjective assessments of the end-of-treatment casts for each patient. Three examiners then used the ABO-OGS to measure the casts. Pearson correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were conducted to evaluate the correspondence between the ABO-OGS cast measurements and the orthodontists' subjective assessments. RESULTS: The average subjective grading scores were highly correlated with the ABO-OGS scores (r = 0.7042). Four of the 7 study cast components of the ABO-OGS score-occlusal relationship, overjet, interproximal contact, and alignment-were statistically significantly correlated with the judges' subjective assessments. Together, these 4 accounted for 58% of the variability in the average subjective grading scores. The ABO-OGS cutoff score for cases that the judges deemed satisfactory was 16 points; the corresponding cutoff score for cases that the judges considered acceptable was 21 points. CONCLUSIONS: The ABO-OGS is a valid index for the assessment of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients. By comparing the objective scores on this modification of the ABO-OGS with the mean subjective assessment of a panel of highly qualified Chinese orthodontists, a cutoff point for satisfactory treatment outcome was defined as 16 points or fewer, with scores of 16 to 21 points denoting less than satisfactory but still acceptable treatment. Cases that scored greater than 21 points were considered unacceptable.