北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2015, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (1): 90-97.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

正畸疗效主、客观评价方法的有效性

宋广瀛1,姜若萍1,张晓芸1,刘思琦1,于潇楠1,陈青1,翁萱蓉1,五味子1,苏红1,任翀1,单儒楷1,耿直2,许天民1△,建立中国正畸疗效评价标准课题组   

  1. (1.北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院正畸科,北京 100081;2. 北京大学数学科学学院,北京 100871)
  • 出版日期:2015-02-18 发布日期:2015-02-18

Validation of subjective and objective evaluation methods for orthodontic treatment outcome

SONG Guang-ying1,JIANG Ruo-ping1,ZHANG Xiao-yun1,LIU Si-qi1,YU Xiao-nan1,CHEN Qing1,WENG Xuan-rong1,WU Wei-zi1,SU Hong1,REN Chong1,SHAN Ru-kai1,GENG Zhi2,XU Tian-min1△,Research Group of Establishing Chinese Evaluation Standard of Orthodontic Treatment Outcome   

  1. (1.Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China; 2.School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)
  • Online:2015-02-18 Published:2015-02-18

摘要: 目的:探讨69位中国正畸专家对108例正畸完成病例疗效的主观判断结果与牙牙合模型及头颅侧位片客观测量结果的相关性,筛选重要的客观测量项目,并建立主、客观判断的回归模型。方法:从全国6所正畸院校2006年7月至2008年8月治疗完成的2 383个病例中,随机抽取108个病例作为样本。将样本的治疗后牙牙合模型和头颅侧位片作为主、客观评价材料,由69位中国正畸专家对样本的疗效水平进行主观评价,通过治疗标准指数(peer assessment rating,PAR)和美国正畸专家认证委员会-客观评分系统(American board of orthodonticsobjective grading system, ABO-OGS)两种方法对样本的牙牙合模型进行客观测量,采用自主研发的二维头影测量软件对样本的头颅侧位片进行客观测量。以专家主观评价的均值作为因变量,客观测量结果作为自变量,通过Pearson相关分析和多元线性回归分析,建立回归模型。结果:与主观评价结果相关性最高的牙牙合模型资料客观测量项目为ABO-OGS的牙合关系,相关系数为0.655(P<0.01),其次是PAR的覆盖,相关系数为0.525(P<0.01)。与主观评价结果相关性最高的头颅侧位片客观测量项目为下切牙的唇倾度,相关系数为0.446(P<0.01),其次是下唇的突度,相关系数为0.436(P<0.01)。多元线性回归分析结果中纳入回归方程的项目为ABO-OGS的排列、ABO-OGS的牙合关系、ABO-OGS的邻牙接触关系、L1/NB(°)、PAR的覆盖、SNB(°)、ABOOGS的牙合接触、U1/SN2(°)和PAR的中线,回归方程的R2为0.72。结论:本回归模型能够有效地反映69位中国正畸专家对108例正畸患者疗效水平的主观评价金标准,从而客观地评判中国正畸治疗的疗效水平。

关键词: 错牙合, 正畸学, 治疗结果, 回归分析

Abstract: Objective: To assess the correlations between objective measurements of 108 finished orthodontic cases and subjective assessments made by 69 orthodontic specialists, to explore the statistically significant measuring categories of cast and cephalogram and to validate the regression model. Methods:  A stratified random sample of 108 cases was drawn from the large sample of 2 383 patients who finished orthodontic treatment between July 2006 and August 2008 in six orthodontic treatment centers around China. For each patient, the post-treatment information sources evaluated in this study included standardized plaster study casts and a lateral cephalometric X-ray image. These information sources were evaluated both singly and in combination by a panel of 69 orthodontic specialists. The average subjective grading scores of 69 orthodontists were regarded as the gold standard. Six examiners used the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and American board of orthodontics-objective grading system(ABO-OGS) to measure all the study casts respectively and three other examiners measured all the lateral cephalometric X-ray images by using customized software. The objective measuring data were correlated with the gold standard. The correlations between the objective measurement and the subjective evaluation were assessed, the statistically significant measuring categories of cast and cephalogram were explored and the regression model was validated. Results: The ABO-OGS scores of “occlusal relationship” correlated most strongly with the subjective scores of cast (r=0.655, P<0.01), and the secondarily correlated category with those were the PAR scores of “overjet” (r=0.525, P<0.01). The proclination of the lower incisors correlated most strongly with the subjective scores of cephalogram (r=0.446, P<0.01), and the secondarily correlated category with those was the protrusion of the lower lips (r=0.436, P<0.01). Nine components were predictive for the post-treatment model and lateral cephalometric film(Post-M+C) outcome: alignment (ABO-OGS), occlusal relationship (ABO-OGS), interproximal contact(ABO-OGS), L1/NB(°), overjet (PAR), SNB(°), occlusal contacts (ABO-OGS), U1/SN2(°) and centerline (PAR). These 9 components accounted for 72% of the variability in the average subjective grading scores. Conclusion: The objective regression model could replace the averaged opinion of Chinese orthodontic experts effectively, making objective assessment of orthodontic treatment outcome for Chinese patients.

Key words: Malocclusion, Orthodontics, Treatment outcome, Regression analysis

[1] 李文菁,张保宙,李恒,赖良鹏,杜辉,孙宁,龚晓峰,李莹,王岩,武勇. 胫距跟融合治疗终末期踝和后足病变的中短期临床结果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(2): 299-306.
[2] 邹雪,白小娟,张丽卿. 艾拉莫德联合托法替布治疗难治性中重度类风湿关节炎的疗效[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(6): 1013-1021.
[3] 薛蔚,董樑,钱宏阳,费笑晨. 前列腺癌新辅助治疗与辅助治疗的现状及进展[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(5): 775-780.
[4] 邱敏,宗有龙,王滨帅,杨斌,徐楚潇,孙争辉,陆敏,赵磊,卢剑,刘承,田晓军,马潞林. 腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗中高复杂程度肾肿瘤的效果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(5): 833-837.
[5] 王磊,韩天栋,江卫星,李钧,张道新,田野. 主动迁移技术与原位碎石技术在输尿管软镜治疗1~2 cm输尿管上段结石中的安全性和有效性比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(3): 553-557.
[6] 刘伟涛,王怡然,王雪东,周彦恒. 锥形束CT研究上颌反复扩缩前方牵引后上颌骨缝的三维变化[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(2): 346-355.
[7] 李伟浩,李伟,张学民,李清乐,焦洋,张韬,蒋京军,张小明. 去分支杂交手术和传统手术治疗胸腹主动脉瘤的结果比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(1): 177-181.
[8] 朱正达,高岩,何汶秀,方鑫,刘洋,魏攀,闫志敏,华红. 红色诺卡氏菌细胞壁骨架治疗糜烂型口腔扁平苔藓的疗效及安全性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(5): 964-969.
[9] 李潇,苏家增,张严妍,张丽琪,张亚琼,柳登高,俞光岩. 131I相关唾液腺炎的炎症分级及内镜治疗[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(3): 586-590.
[10] 毛铭馨,徐莉,靖无迪,徐筱,侯建霞,李小彤,王晓霞. 骨性安氏Ⅲ类错牙合畸形患者前牙唇侧牙槽嵴顶位置及相关因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(1): 77-82.
[11] 杜仁杰,焦剑,周彦恒,施捷. 侵袭性牙周炎患者正畸前后的咬合变化[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 919-924.
[12] 王高南,焦剑,周彦恒,施捷. 正畸牙齿位置的移动对角化龈宽度的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 931-936.
[13] 詹颖,杜祎甜,仰浈臻,张春丽,齐宪荣. 紫杉醇微球-原位凝胶的制备及其局部注射的抗肿瘤药效[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(3): 477-486.
[14] 杨泽川,刘朝旭,林阳,胡伟华,陈文坚,李锋,曾恒. 颈后路单开门椎管扩大成形术全钛板与交替钛板、缝线固定治疗颈椎病的对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(1): 187-193.
[15] 游文喆,窦桂丽,夏斌. 乳牙间接牙髓治疗两年疗效观察及影响因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(1): 65-69.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!