Hildebrand Jed C, Palomo J Martin, Palomo Leena, Sivik Mike, Hans Mark
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Feb;133(2):283-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.035.
The American Board of Orthodontics' objective grading system (ABO OGS) is currently the gold standard for evaluating plaster casts of completed orthodontic cases.
Thirty-six cases of finished orthodontic casts in plaster and digital form were scored by using 2 methods: an electronic version of the ABO OGS designed to be used with digital casts (OrthoCAD, Cadent, Fairview, NJ) and the ABO gauge designed to be used with plaster casts. The 2 scoring methods were compared using descriptive analysis (range, absolute mean difference, and standard deviation), the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Intraexaminer reliability was high for both the plaster and the digital casts (r = 0.998). A statistically significant difference (P <.001) was found when comparing the total ABO scores from the plaster and digital casts. The scores from digital casts exceeded the scores from plaster casts by an average of 9.0 +/- 5.4 points. This difference was due to statistically significant differences in 3 ABO OGS components: alignment, occlusal contact, and overjet.
The results indicate that this computer version of the ABO OGS cannot be used as a substitute for manual grading with the ABO ruler.
美国正畸委员会的客观评分系统(ABO OGS)目前是评估正畸完成病例石膏模型的金标准。
采用两种方法对36例已完成的石膏和数字形式的正畸模型进行评分:一种是设计用于数字模型的ABO OGS电子版(OrthoCAD,Cadent,Fairview,新泽西州),另一种是设计用于石膏模型的ABO测量仪。使用描述性分析(范围、绝对平均差和标准差)、Spearman等级相关系数和Wilcoxon秩和检验对两种评分方法进行比较。
石膏模型和数字模型的检查者内信度均较高(r = 0.998)。比较石膏模型和数字模型的ABO总分时发现有统计学显著差异(P <.001)。数字模型的分数比石膏模型的分数平均高出9.0 +/- 5.4分。这种差异是由于ABO OGS的三个组成部分存在统计学显著差异:排齐、咬合接触和覆盖。
结果表明,ABO OGS的这个计算机版本不能替代使用ABO直尺进行的手工评分。