Department of Orthodontics, Clinic 8, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Northlight Dental, 6 The Square, Aspley Guise, Bedfordshire, MK17 8DF, UK.
Prog Orthod. 2022 Jul 25;23(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00419-2.
To compare a new "guide for borderline orthodontic need" (GBON) with the "aesthetic component" (AC) of the IOTN in assessing borderline cases (dental health component DHC 3), and to compare reliability and opinions of orthodontists on the use of each index.
Cross-sectional population descriptive study. Ninety-four qualified orthodontists assessed 30 borderline malocclusions according to the GBON and AC indices and completed a questionnaire.
Kappa analysis showed GBON and AC to have similar intra-examiner reliability (K = 0.64 and 0.60 ,respectively). Cronbach's alpha inter-examiner reliability analysis showed GBON and AC to have similar, acceptable reliability (α = 0.7 and 0.9 ,respectively). There was only fair agreement between GBON and AC in terms of the number of malocclusions deemed as needing treatment (AC threshold 6). Analysis of specific occlusal traits revealed that reverse overjets were deemed as needing treatment according to AC but not anterior open bites. Both traits were assessed as needing treatment according GBON. Despite a lack of familiarity with GBON, assessors found GBON easier to use and more appropriate in assessing borderline malocclusions.
Both GBON and AC had good and similar inter- and intra-examiner reliability. There was substantial agreement on treatment need between GBON and AC but only when the AC threshold is reduced to 4. GBON was more able to identify malocclusal traits in need of treatment than AC. GBON was found to be easier to use and considered more appropriate than AC in judging DHC 3 malocclusions.
比较一种新的“边缘性正畸需求指南”（GBON）与 IOTN 的“美学成分”（AC）在评估边缘病例（牙齿健康成分 DHC3）中的作用，并比较正畸医生对每个指数的使用的可靠性和意见。
横断面人群描述性研究。94 名合格的正畸医生根据 GBON 和 AC 指数评估了 30 例边缘性错畸形，并完成了一份问卷。
Kappa 分析显示，GBON 和 AC 的内部一致性可靠性相似（K 值分别为 0.64 和 0.60）。Cronbach's alpha 检验者间可靠性分析表明，GBON 和 AC 的可靠性相似，可接受（α值分别为 0.7 和 0.9）。在需要治疗的错畸形数量方面，GBON 和 AC 之间仅有一般的一致性（AC 阈值为 6）。对特定的咬合特征进行分析显示，根据 AC，反覆牙合被认为需要治疗，但前牙开牙合则不需要。根据 GBON，这两种特征都被评估为需要治疗。尽管对 GBON 不太熟悉，但评估者发现 GBON 更易于使用，并且更适合评估边缘性错畸形。
GBON 和 AC 均具有良好且相似的检验者间和检验内可靠性。在治疗需求方面，GBON 和 AC 之间存在实质性的一致性，但只有当 AC 阈值降低到 4 时才存在。GBON 比 AC 更能识别需要治疗的错牙合特征。GBON 被发现比 AC 更易于使用，并且在判断 DHC3 错牙合方面更合适。
