Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the validity, reliability, and usability of a newly digitized GOSLON Yardstick model set for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) outcome assessment. It was hypothesized that digital ratings would demonstrate reliability comparable to traditional plaster models and support consistent outcome comparisons across centers.
Design
Retrospective secondary analysis of dental casts. Raters were blinded to patient and institutional identity. Calibration sessions were held prior to assessment. Reliability, workload, and usability were evaluated using validated instruments.
Setting
One craniofacial center.
Participants
Thirty-eight Caucasian UCLP patients in mixed dentition, with primary surgical care at a single institution. Seven orthodontic residents (novices) and 5 craniofacial orthodontists (experts) completed all ratings.
Interventions
Plaster casts were digitized using a 3Shape TRIOS scanner and uploaded to Sketchfab. Novices rated both formats across 2 sessions post-calibration. Experts completed 2 digital-only sessions after virtual calibration.
Main Outcome Measures
Intra- and inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa), GOSLON score distribution, task workload (NASA-TLX), and system usability (SUS).
Results
Digital GOSLON ratings showed moderate-to-high reliability (expert kappa: 0.82–0.86; novice: 0.75–0.81). No significant differences were found between plaster and digital scores for novices. Experts assigned more GOSLON 3 scores; novices assigned more GOSLON 4 (P < .001). Experts preferred digital models; novices preferred plaster. Workload and usability scores were acceptable across both groups.
Conclusions
Even though calibration remains critical for novice raters, the Digital GOSLON is a reliable tool for outcomes assessment and may facilitate inter-center comparisons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
