Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-Universiät, Frankfurt, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 5;12(1):20947. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24817-y.
To compare four plaque indices used in orthodontics. An objective, quantitative plaque index and three subjective conventional plaque indices were analyzed. The study included n = 50 photographs of n = 50 subjects with a multibracket appliance (MB) in the maxilla and mandible. Photographs were taken using Digital Plaque Imaging Analysis (DPIA) and the Percentage Plaque Index (PPI) was calculated. The conventional plaque indices, a modified version of the Turesky-modification of the Quigley & Hein Index (TQH index), Attin index, and modified bonded bracket index (mBB index) were collected from n = 14 evaluators using the DPIA photographs. The evaluators had different levels of orthodontic experience: n = 4 evaluators had little orthodontic experience, n = 5 evaluators had moderate orthodontic experience, and n = 5 evaluators had a lot of orthodontic experience. Plaque accumulation was assessed differently with the plaque indices. Thus, the plaque indices are not interchangeable. We recommend DPIA as an objective, quantitative and sensitive method for plaque determination in scientific studies. The simple statistical evaluation offers a great advantage over conventional plaque indices.
比较四种在正畸中使用的菌斑指数。分析了一种客观、定量的菌斑指数和三种主观的传统菌斑指数。本研究包括 n=50 名上颌和下颌多托槽矫治器（MB）患者的 n=50 张照片。使用 Digital Plaque Imaging Analysis（DPIA）拍摄照片，并计算菌斑百分比指数（PPI）。传统的菌斑指数，改良的 Turesky 改良的 Quigley 和 Hein 指数（TQH 指数）、Attin 指数和改良粘结托槽指数（mBB 指数），由 n=14 名评估者使用 DPIA 照片收集。评估者的正畸经验水平不同：n=4 名评估者正畸经验较少，n=5 名评估者正畸经验中等，n=5 名评估者正畸经验丰富。菌斑指数对菌斑的评估方式不同。因此，这些菌斑指数不能互换使用。我们建议 DPIA 作为一种客观、定量和敏感的菌斑检测方法，用于科学研究。简单的统计评估比传统的菌斑指数具有更大的优势。
