BACKGROUND: The EUROCRAN index has been used in inter-center studies to assess dental arch relationship (DAR) and palatal morphology (PM) in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). For this type of inter-center research, a scoring method that could be performed over the internet would be the most effective. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of application of the EUROCRAN index on 3D digital models or photographs of plaster models instead of using plaster models. METHODS: The EUROCRAN reference models were presented in three formats: plaster models, 2D photographs of plaster models, and 3D digital models. Plaster models of children with UCLP (n = 45) were rated. Of each case, all three formats were rated by six calibrated observers in random order. The strength of agreement of the ratings was assessed with kappa statistics. Concordance among observers was evaluated with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The ICC showed a good inter-observer agreement for the DAR and poor inter-observer agreement for the PM. Intra-observer agreement for the DAR was moderate to very good, yet for the PM poor to moderate. Comparison between the three formats per observer for the DAR was good or very good and for the PM moderate to poor. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results show that the EUROCRAN index is an acceptable and reliable scoring method for the DAR on plaster models, 2D photographs of plaster models, and 3D digital models. However, due to the small range of deviations in palatal morphology between the cases in our study, the PM component of the index was difficult to assess. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In clinical audits and inter-center studies, plaster models can be substituted by 2D photographs of plaster casts or 3D digital models when grading treatment outcome with the EUROCRAN index.

Department of Cariology and Preventive Dentistry Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands

Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Center Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Taipei Taiwan

Department of Developmental and Preventive Sciences Faculty of Dentistry Kuwait University Kuwait City State of Kuwait

Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology Radboud University Medical Center Philips van Leydenlaan 25 NL 6525 EX Nijmegen The Netherlands

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics University of Bern Bern Switzerland

Department of Orthodontics Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJ, Bergland O, Semb G. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314–322. PubMed

Pruzansky S, Aduss H. Arch form and the deciduous occlusion in complete unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate J. 1964;30:411–418. PubMed

Huddart AG, Bodenham RS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1972;9:194–209. PubMed

Mossey PA, Clark JD, Gray D. Preliminary investigation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25:251–257. doi: 10.1093/ejo/25.3.251. PubMed DOI

Morris T, Roberts C, Shaw WC. Incisal overjet as an outcome measure in unilateral cleft lip and palate management. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31:142–145. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(1994)031<0142:IOAAOM>2.3.CO;2. PubMed DOI

Atack N, Hathorn I, Mars M, Sandy J. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19:165–170. doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.2.165. PubMed DOI

Chawla O, Deacon SA, Atack NE, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. The 5-year-olds’ index: determining the optimal format for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:768–772. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr096. PubMed DOI

Jones T, Al-Ghatam R, Atack N, Deacon S, Power R, Albery L, Ireland T, Sandy J. A review of outcome measures used in cleft care. J Orthod. 2014;41:128–40. doi: 10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000086. PubMed DOI

EUROCRAN Index Group (2007) The Eurocran Index for grading dental arch relationship and palatal morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. In: Oskouei SM. Web-based learning package on the EUROCRAN Yardstick for rating surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip & palate patients. University of Manchester (UK), Master of Science thesis, pp 27-28, pp 75-99

Altalibi M, Saltaji H, Edwards R, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:772–782. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt009. PubMed DOI

Haque S, Alam MK, Arshad AI. An overview of indices used to measure treatment effectiveness in patients with cleft lip and palate. Malays J Med Sci. 2015;22:4–11. PubMed PMC

Von den Hoff J, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Palatal wound healing: the effects of scarring on growth. In: Berkowitz S, editor. Cleft Lip and Palate. 3. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2013. pp. 309–324.

Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Bongaarts C, Dudkiewicz Z, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following one-stage and three-stage surgical protocols. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;15:503–510. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0420-z. PubMed DOI

Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Dudkiewicz Z, Offert B, Piwowar W, Kuijpers M, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Dental arch relationships following palatoplasty for cleft lip and palate repair. J Dent Res. 2012;91:47–51. doi: 10.1177/0022034511425674. PubMed DOI

Patel D (2011) Evaluation of the use of the Modified Huddart Bodenham & Eurocran Yardstick for the assessment of surgical outcome for unilateral cleft lip and palate. University of Dundee (UK), Master of Dental Science thesis

Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U, Wong RWK, Bendeus M, Yeung S. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:589–595. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp159. PubMed DOI

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurement on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x. PubMed DOI

Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:673–682. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023. PubMed DOI

Kaihara Y, Katayama A, Ono K, Kurose M, Toma K, Amano H, Nikawa H, Kozai K. Comparative analyses of paediatric dental measurements using plaster and three-dimensional digital models. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2014;15:137–142. PubMed

Kim J, Heo G, Lagravère MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:443–450. doi: 10.2319/051213-365.1. PubMed DOI PMC

Westerlund A, Tancredi W, Ransjö M, Bresin A, Psonis S, Torgersson O. Digital casts in orthodontics: a comparison of 4 software systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:509–516. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.020. PubMed DOI

Dogan S, Olmez S, Semb G. Comparative assessment of dental arch relationships using goslon yardstick in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate using dental casts, two-dimensional photos, and three-dimensional images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:347–351. doi: 10.1597/10-269. PubMed DOI

Asquith JA, McIntyre GT. Dental arch relationships on three-dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:530–534. doi: 10.1597/10-099. PubMed DOI

Chawla O, Atack NE, Deacon S, Leary SD, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. Three-dimensional digital models for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:182–186. doi: 10.1597/11-283. PubMed DOI

Nollet PJ, Katsaros C, van ‘t Hof MA, Bongaarts CA, Semb G, Shaw WC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Photographs of study casts: an alternative medium for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:646–650. doi: 10.1597/03-101.1. PubMed DOI

Liao YF, Huang CS, Lin IF. Intraoral photographs for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:415–419. doi: 10.1597/07-220.1. PubMed DOI

Liao YF, Lin IF. Dental arch relationships after two-flap palatoplasty in Taiwanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:1133–1136. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.06.022. PubMed DOI

Leenarts CMR, Bartzela TN, Bronkhorst EM, Semb G, Shaw WC, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Photographs of dental casts or digital models: rating dental arch relationships in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41:180–185. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.11.004. PubMed DOI

Cohen ME. Analysis of ordinal dental data: evaluation of conflicting recommendations. J Dent Res. 2001;80:309–313. doi: 10.1177/00220345010800010301. PubMed DOI

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. PubMed DOI

The Slavcleft: A Three-Center Study of the Outcome of Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate Considering Palatal Shape