Reliability of a Categorical Scale (GOSLON) and a Continuous Scale (10-cm Visual Analog Scale) for Assessing Dental Arch Relationships Using Conventional Plaster and 3D Digital Orthodontic Study Models of Children With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2019
Reliability of a Categorical Scale (GOSLON) and a Continuous Scale (10-cm Visual Analog Scale) for Assessing Dental Arch Relationships Using Conventional Plaster and 3D Digital Orthodontic Study Models of Children With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
To assess reliability of scoring plaster models and their 3D digital copy of children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) using a continuous scale (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]) and a categorical scale (GOSLON Yardstick).
Design:
Reliability observational study involving 3 trained GOSLON Yardstick assessors blinded to the origin of the models.
Patients:
Models from 35 New Zealand (NZ) and 35 Oslo CUCLP patients were standardized and randomly ordered before rating.
Outcome Measures:
Assessments were undertaken using the GOSLON and the VAS for both model formats. Twenty percent of sample were randomly selected and rescored at the first assessment, and whole sample was rescored 1 week later. Weighted κ was used to assess GOSLON reliability, while correlation was used for the VAS.
Results:
The VAS and GOSLON intra- and inter-rater agreement was similar for both model formats. Repeat measurements on the day have similar intra-rater reliability as repeat measurements at least a week part. There was no significant difference between the 2 model formats, and both the GOSLON and VAS found the NZ models were significantly worse than Oslo.
Conclusions:
A 10-cm VAS is a reliable method to assess dental arch relationships and appears to have good face validity when compared to GOSLON. The VAS allows for statistically robust rankings of the dental arch relationships, although more studies will be required to enable the VAS scores to have greater clinical meaning. The 3D digital models can be used for GOSLON and VAS rankings with a high degree of reliability.
AltalibiMSaltajiHEdwardsRMajorPWFlores-MirC. Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(6):772–782.
2.
AmachiRHoriuchiSKawaiNKinouchiNFujiharaSKurodaSTanakaE. Assessment of occlusal relationship in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using 3-dimensional digital models. J Jap Cleft Palate Ass. 2012;37(3):203–209.
3.
AsquithJAMcIntyreGT. Dental arch relationships on three- dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(5):530–534.
4.
BaylisAChapmanKWhitehillTL, Group TAS. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hypernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):660–670.
5.
BellAAyoubAFSiebertP. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 2003;30(3):219–223.
6.
CastickSKnightRSellD. Perceptual judgments of resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate: ordinal versus visual analogue scaling. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(1):19–31.
7.
ChalmersEVMcIntyreGTWangWGillgrassTMartinCBMosseyPA. Intraoral 3D scanning or dental impressions for the assessment of dental arch relationships in cleft care: which is superior?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):568–577.
8.
ChawlaOAtackNEDeaconSALearySDIrelandAJSandyJR. Three-dimensional digital models for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(2):182–186.
9.
DoganSOlmezSSembG. Comparative assessment of dental arch relationships using Goslon Yardstick in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate using dental casts, two-dimensional photos, and three-dimensional images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(3):347–351.
10.
DuncanJABondJSMasonTLudlowACridlandPO’KaneSFergusonMW. Visual analogue scale scoring and ranking: a suitable and sensitive method for assessing scar quality?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(4):909–918.
11.
FowlerPVAl-AniAHThompsonJMD. Comparison of reliability of categorical and continuous scales for radiographic assessments of bone infill following secondary alveolar bone grafting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(2):269–275.
12.
GrünheidTMccarthySDLarsonBE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673–682.
13.
HathawayRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoARussellKLongRCohenMSembGShawW. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):244–251.
14.
HeliövaaraAKüselerASkaarePShawWMølstedKKarstenABrinckERizellSMarcussonASæleP. Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 6. dental arch relationships in 5 year-olds. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):52–57.
15.
JackHCAntounJSFowlerPV. Evaluation of primary surgical outcomes in New Zealand patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Aust Orthod J. 2011;27(1):23–27.
16.
JonesTLearySAtackNIrelandTSandyJ. Which index should be used to measure primary surgical outcome for unilateral cleft lip and palate patients?Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):345–352.
17.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
18.
LeenartsCMBartzelaTNBronkhorstEMSembGShawWCKatsarosCKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Photographs of dental casts or digital models: rating dental arch relationships in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(2):180–185.
19.
LongREDeaconS. Assessment of orthodontic outcomes in patients with clefts. In LoseeJKirschnerRE, eds. Comprehensive Cleft Care. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008:1061–1077.
20.
MarsMAsher-McDadeCBrattstromVDahlEMcWilliamJMølstedKPlintDAPrahl-AndersenBSembGShawWC. A six- center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(5):405–408.
21.
MarsMPlintDAHoustonWJBerglandOSembG. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(4):314–322.
McGuinnessNJStephensCD. Storage of orthodontic study models in hospital units in the UK. Br J Orthod. 1992;19(3):227–232.
24.
MølstedKBrattströmVPrahl-AndersenBShawWCSembG. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 3: dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):78–82.
25.
NichollsWSingerSSouthallPWintersJ. The assessment of digital study models using the GOSLON Yardstick. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(3):264–269.
26.
NolletPKatsarosCvan’t HofMBongaartsCSembGShawWKuijpers-JagtmanA. Photographs of study casts: an alternative medium for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(6):646–650.
27.
Paradowska-StolarzAKawalaB. Occlusal disorders among patients with total clefts of lip, alveolar bone, and palate. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:Article id 583416.
28.
RachwalskiMKlimovaIUrbanovaWBrudnickiAPolackovaP. The Slavcleft study: treatment outcome in cleft lip and palate. Dental arch relationship. Presented at the International Cleft Congress, February 2017, Chennai, India. Free Paper Abstract 171-172.
29.
StebelADesmedtDBronkhorstEKuijpersMAFudalejPS. Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):197–201.
30.
WilliamsABearnDMildinhalSMurphyTSellDShawWSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) study. Part 2: dentofacial outcomes and patient satisfaction. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(1):24–29.
31.
ZhuSYangYGuMKhambayB. A comparison of three viewing media for assessing dental arch relationships in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):578–583.
