Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022 Aug 11. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12600. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore and validate the consensus of orthodontic experts on the assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes based on subjective and objective analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research consisted of two parts: the exploration and verification of expert consensus. First, a sample of 108 cases randomly selected from six dental schools in China were evaluated by 69 orthodontic experts and measured by researchers based on post-treatment study casts and lateral cephalograms, respectively. Then, through statistical analysis, the objective indicators significantly correlated with experts’ subjective evaluations were selected, their weights were determined, and the critical values of satisfactory, acceptable and unacceptable grades were screened. Subsequently, another sample of 72 cases were evaluated by another 36 orthodontic experts, and the subjective evaluation results were compared with the objective measurement results.
RESULTS: There were six model indicators and seven cephalometric indicators being significantly correlated with the experts’ subjective evaluations, including occlusal contact, overjet, midline, interproximal contact, alignment, occlusal relationship, L1/NB, ANB, SN/OP, U1/SN, LL-EP, Cm-Sn-UL and Ns-Prn-Pos, with a cumulative R2 of 0.704. In the verification part, the correlation coefficient between the 36 experts’ subjective scores and objective regression scores was 0.716 (P < .001); the correlation coefficient between the 36 experts’ subjective grades and objective grades was 0.757 (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic experts had good consistency in the subjective evaluation of the combined records of post-treatment study casts and lateral cephalograms. The objective indicators selected from subjective and objective analysis had good reliability and validity and could further improve the existing occlusal indices.
PMID:36004578 | DOI:10.1111/ocr.12600
