The Americleft Project

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine reliability and validity of GOSLON Yardstick ratings using plaster casts versus photo galleries of digital images in actual intercenter comparisons. The dental arch relationships of 112 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate from 3 North American cleft/craniofacial centers were rated in 2 separate studies. In the first, plaster casts were used. For a later intercenter comparison, the same dental casts were scanned, digital bases added, and two-dimensional photographic galleries (6 views) were created for each set of casts. Three raters experienced with the GOSLON Yardstick carried out 2 separate ratings of the plaster casts in the first study, then of the photographic gallery of scanned digital images of the same casts in the second study. Inter- and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using the Weighted Kappa statistic. Average scores for each patient were calculated and compared between methods with correlation statistics and a Bland-Altman plot. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare results between centers using both media. Reliability using both methods was very good and comparable between methods. Mean weighted Kappas were: inter-rater = 0.815 (plaster) versus 0.891 (photo); and intrarater = 0.866 (plaster) versus 0.891 (photo). There was a highly significant correlation (r = 0.920). Mean difference between centers was 0.033 of a GOSLON category. The level of significance of the differences found between centers with both methods was identical, confirming the interchangeability of both media presentations.

Maxillary Development and Dental Arch Relationships Following Early Two-Stage Palatoplasty: A Comparative Study

“…Comparing the results with those obtained from direct evaluation, they concluded that no significant differences were seen between the two procedures. 19 Their findings advanced the GOSLON yardstick assessment, which is often used for large-scale studies across multiple centers. 45,46 Given the risk of the original model being damaged or lost during the assessments among examiners, we used standardized photographs in the present study.…”

“…We evaluated dental arch relationships using standardized photographs of dental models. This procedure is based on a study reported by Long et al 19 They took standardized photographs of dental models of patients with cleft lip and palate and used them for GOSLON yardstick assessment. Comparing the results with those obtained from direct evaluation, they concluded that no significant differences were seen between the two procedures.…”

“…18 Pictures of the plaster model of the upper and lower dental arches from 5 predetermined angles (right lateral, left lateral, occlusal area of the upper dental arch, occlusal area of the lower dental arch, and the front occlusal view) were taken. By comparing the pictures to those of standardized models, 19 we classified the patients into 5 categories: Group 1 (excellent), Group 2 (good), Group 3 (fair), Group 4 (poor), and Group 5 (very poor). Four examiners (K.O., Y.Y., T.Y., and W.T.…”

Three-Dimensional Morphological Changes of the True Cleft under Passive Presurgical Orthopaedics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Cohort Study

“…The dimensions and shape of the cleft alveolus and palate play an important role in the outcome of any primary surgery [18]. Different methods are used to measure the cleft dimensions, with some investigators only measuring the separation between two segments anteriorly, whereas others measure the cleft width at several palatal levels or measure the cleft area in relation to the total palatal area [2][3][4][5][6][7][10][11][12][13][18][19][20]. Aberrant anatomical structures on dental casts pose a major challenge to the clinician attempting to identify and determine the correct anatomical landmarks [20][21][22].…”

Hipoplasia maxilar primária do paciente com fissura labiopalatina transforame unilateral: correlação com dados clínicos

“…Por esse motivo, estudos complementares observaram eficácia na substituição desses modelos de gesso por fotografias 84 e modelos digitalizados. Esses métodos simplificam e reduzem os custos envolvidos na execução das avaliações, eliminando, além dos problemas mencionados acima, encontros presenciais, duplicação e transporte dos respectivos modelos de gesso 85 . Embora essas duas últimas técnicas mostrem bons níveis de concordância e as análises realizadas por fotografias sejam consideradas satisfatórias, é sugerido uma deficiência principalmente na avaliação do overjet.…”