European journal of orthodontics · 2016
The validity and reliability of an automated method of scoring dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate using the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martin Catherine B, Ma Xinhui, McIntyre Grant T, Wang Weijie, Lin Ping, Chalmers Elinor V, Mossey Peter A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an automated software tool for the assessment of dental arch relationships using the modified Huddart and Bodenham (MHB) index.
DESIGN: Cohort of 43 models of subjects aged 9-21 with UCLP and the ten GOSLON reference models sets.
METHOD: The 53 sets of plaster models were scored using the MHB index and scanned with a benchtop scanner. The digital models were MHB scored visually using a commercial software program and landmarked for automatic scoring using a software plug-in. Scoring/landmarking was undertaken by three observers and repeated after 1 month. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were tested using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (threshold > 0.9). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated inter-observer agreement for each model format. Random and systematic error with digital landmark identification error were determined using the x, y, and z co-ordinates for 28 models digitized twice 1 month apart using Cronbach's alpha and a t-test, respectively.
RESULTS: Intra-operator landmark identification was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.933) with no differences between sessions (P > 0.05). Intra-observer reproducibility was excellent for all examiners (Cronbach's alpha and ICC 0.986-0.988). Inter-observer reproducibility was highest for the software plug-in (0.991), followed by plaster (0.989) and OrthoAnalyzer (0.979) and Bland-Altman plots confirmed no systematic bias and greater consistency of scores with the automated software.
CONCLUSION: The automated MHB software tool is valid, reproducible, and the most objective method of assessing maxillary arch constriction for patients with UCLP.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare no conflict of interest or financial relationship with any organization or software used within the study.
DESIGN: Cohort of 43 models of subjects aged 9-21 with UCLP and the ten GOSLON reference models sets.
METHOD: The 53 sets of plaster models were scored using the MHB index and scanned with a benchtop scanner. The digital models were MHB scored visually using a commercial software program and landmarked for automatic scoring using a software plug-in. Scoring/landmarking was undertaken by three observers and repeated after 1 month. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were tested using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (threshold > 0.9). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated inter-observer agreement for each model format. Random and systematic error with digital landmark identification error were determined using the x, y, and z co-ordinates for 28 models digitized twice 1 month apart using Cronbach's alpha and a t-test, respectively.
RESULTS: Intra-operator landmark identification was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.933) with no differences between sessions (P > 0.05). Intra-observer reproducibility was excellent for all examiners (Cronbach's alpha and ICC 0.986-0.988). Inter-observer reproducibility was highest for the software plug-in (0.991), followed by plaster (0.989) and OrthoAnalyzer (0.979) and Bland-Altman plots confirmed no systematic bias and greater consistency of scores with the automated software.
CONCLUSION: The automated MHB software tool is valid, reproducible, and the most objective method of assessing maxillary arch constriction for patients with UCLP.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare no conflict of interest or financial relationship with any organization or software used within the study.