To assess the reliability of remote online GOSLON yardstick rating compared to a traditional onsite setting using a photogallery of a 3D dental model.
Design
Crossover study.
Patients
The inclusion criteria are patients with a non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, with the models taken during mixed dentition, prior to any orthodontic treatment. 34 patients participated in this study.
Interventions
A panel of 3 assessors rated a photogallery of digital models using the GOSLON yardstick in both onsite and remote online settings.
Main Outcome Measurements
The level of agreement between the two settings, intra- and interrater reliability, was assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa statistics (κ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ).
Results
The level of agreement between remote online and onsite ratings exhibited a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.83; ICC > 0.95; ρ > 0.94). In addition, intrarater agreement for both rating methods also showed a very good level of agreement (κ > 0.81; ICC > 0.91; ρ > 0.94).
Conclusion
This study demonstrated a very good level of agreement and correlation between the GOSLON scores of both viewing settings. This suggests that the difference in the setting, viewing environment, and device does not affect the GOSLON score results. Therefore, remote online rating is as reliable as onsite rating.
AliSAMosseyPGillgrassT. A study model based photographic method for assessment of surgical treatment outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Eur J Orthod. Aug 2006;28(4):366-372.
2.
ShawWCDahlEAsher-McdadeCBrattströmVMarsMMcwilliamJMølstedKPlintDAPrahl-AndersenBRobertsCSembGTheRPS. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 1992;29(5):413-418.
3.
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. Oct 1987;24(4):314-322.
4.
AltalibiMSaltajiHEdwardsRMajorPWFlores-MirC. Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. Dec 2013;35(6):772-782.
5.
AtackNEHathornISSembGDowellTSandyJR. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 1997;34(3):242-246.
6.
MosseyPAClarkJDGrayD. Preliminary investigation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary arch constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur J Orthod. Jun. 2003;25(3):251-257.
7.
Pachêco-PereiraCDe Luca CantoGMajorPWFlores-MirC. Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. May 2015;85(3):501-509.
8.
KumarAAPhillipAKumarSRawatAPriyaSKumaranV. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. Aug 2015;7(Suppl 2):S465-S469.
9.
FlemingPSMarinhoVJohalA. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. Feb. 2011;14(1):1-16.
10.
ChalmersEVMcIntyreGTWangWGillgrassTMartinCBMosseyPA. Intraoral 3D Scanning or Dental Impressions for the Assessment of Dental Arch Relationships in Cleft Care: Which is Superior?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 2016;53(5):568-577.
11.
RossiniGParriniSCastroflorioTDeregibusADebernardiCL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Feb. 2016;149(2):161-170.
12.
WarneckiMNahajowskiMPapadopoulosMAKawalaBLisJSarulM. Assessment of the reliability of measurements taken on digital orthodontic models obtained from scans of plaster models in laboratory scanners. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. Sep 19 2022;44(5):522-529.
13.
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. Jan 2005;42(1):78-82.
14.
HathawayRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoARussellKLongRECohenMSembGShawW. 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. May 2011;48(3):244-251.
15.
NoverrazRLDisseMAOngkosuwitoEMKuijpers-JagtmanAMPrahlC. Transverse dental arch relationship at 9 and 12 years in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with infant orthopedics: a randomized clinical trial (DUTCHCLEFT). Clin Oral Investig. Dec 2015;19(9):2255-2265.
16.
NolletPJPMKatsarosCvan 't HofMABongaartsCAMSembGShawWCKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Photographs of study casts: an alternative medium for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Nov 2004;41(6):646-650.
17.
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. May 2012;49(3):347-351.
18.
NichollsWSingerSLSouthallPJWintersJC. The Assessment of Digital Study Models Using the GOSLON Yardstick Index. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 2014;51(3):264-269.
19.
ZhuSYangYGuMKhambayB. A Comparison of Three Viewing Media for Assessing Dental Arch Relationships in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 2016;53(5):578-583.
20.
LiaoYFHuangCSLinIF. Intraoral photographs for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Jul 2009;46(4):415-419.
21.
LongREDaskalogiannakisJMercadoAMHathawayRRFesslerJRussellKA. The Americleft Project: Plaster Dental Casts Versus Digital Images for GOSLON Yardstick Ratings When Used in Intercenter Comparisons. J Craniofac Surg. Jul 2017;28(5):1269-1273.
22.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJHathawayRRussellKSembGShawWLamichaneMFesslerJLongRE. An Intercenter Comparison of Dental Arch Relationships and Craniofacial Form Including a Center Using Nasoalveolar Molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Jul 2018;55(6):821-829.
23.
HertzmannA. Toward a theory of perspective perception in pictures. J Vis. Apr 1 2024;24(4):23.
24.
JuricevicIKennedyJM. Looking at perspective pictures from too far, too close, and just right. J Exp Psychol Gen. Aug 2006;135(3):448-461.
25.
RundleCWHusaynSSDellavalleRP. Orchestrating a virtual conference amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Dermatol Online J. Jul 15 2020;26(7).
26.
KopecKTStolbachA. Transitioning to Virtual: ACMT's 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting. J Med Toxicol. Oct 2020;16(4):353-355.
27.
HaESHongJYLimSSSoyerHPMunJH. The Impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Pandemic on International Dermatology Conferences in 2020. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:726037.
28.
Boscolo-BertoRPorzionatoASteccoCMacchiVDe CaroR. Anatomical societies find new ways to come together in a post-Covid world. Anat Sci Educ. Nov 2021;14(6):739-751.
29.
Asher-McDadeCRobertsCShawWCGallagerC. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Oct. 1991;28(4):385-390. discussion 390-1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0385_doamfr_2.3.co_2.
30.
FowlerPBellardieHShawBEyresPSembGThompsonJ. 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. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Jan 2019;56(1):84-89.
31.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. Mar. 1977;33(1):159-174.
32.
KooTKLiMY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. Jun. 2016;15(2):155-163.
33.
ChanYH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J. Dec 2003;44(12):614-619.
34.
BoyeUWillaseyAWalshTTickleMPrettyIA. Comparison of an intra-oral photographic caries assessment with an established visual caries assessment method for use in dental epidemiological studies of children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. Dec 2013;41(6):526-533.
35.
CiardoASonnenscheinSKSimonMMRuettersMSpindlerMZieglerPRecciusISpiesA-NKykalJBaumannE-MFacklerSBüschCKimT-S. Remote assessment of DMFT and number of implants with intraoral digital photography in an elderly patient population - a comparative study. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0268360.
36.
Morosini IdeAde OliveiraDCFerreira FdeMFraizFCTorres-PereiraCC. Performance of distant diagnosis of dental caries by teledentistry in juvenile offenders. Telemed J E Health. Jun. 2014;20(6):584-589.
37.
JohnsonNSandyJ. An aesthetic index for evaluation of cleft repair. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(3):243-249.
38.
DyeBAGoodwinMEllwoodRPPrettyIA. Digital epidemiology - Calibrating readers to score dental images remotely. J Dent. Jul 2018;74(Suppl 1):S27-s33.
39.
LorencZPJonesDKimJGwakHMBathamSVachonG. Validating a Series of Photonumeric Rating Scales for Use in Facial Aesthetics Using Statistical Analysis of Intra- and Inter-rater Reliability. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. Dec 2021;3(4):ojab039.
LingYNefsHTBrinkmanWPQuCHeynderickxI. The effect of perspective on presence and space perception. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78513.
42.
ShahrulAINik MustaphaNMAhmadMSKharbandaOPAbd RahmanANA. Development of software for collecting cleft-specific data in Malaysia. BMC Oral Health. Mar 4 2025;25(1):333.
43.
VolrathongchaiKChowchuenBPradubwongS. Enhancing accessibility of patients with cleft lip/palate to healthcare services via a cleft birth registration system. J Med Assoc Thai. Oct 2014;97(Suppl 10):S32-S36.
