2006
DOI: 10.1597/05-074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Validity of the Five-Year Index and the Goslon Yardstick in Predicting Long-Term Dental Arch Relationships

Abstract: Although use of the Goslon yardstick at 5 years has demonstrated some inherent flaws in its use at that age, these drawbacks are fewer than those when the 5-year index is used at 5 years of age.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
1
5

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
68
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The WHO provided an excellent starting point; from there modifications were made to cater to the specifics of this study, given that there are differences between developing a guideline and an index for orthodontic treatment need. The literature was useful, and among the index development protocols reviewed, some assessed the orthodontic treatment need within the entire population,37–40 while others assessed it for a given subpopulation41–46; each had strengths and weaknesses, and thus we further modified our methods, synthesising a protocol for our particular needs from the available literature and using the experience and expertise of the authors. Through this protocol we aim to develop an index that fulfils all of the following criteria47:

Gradient of numeric values: the severity of the orthodontic treatment need within the paediatric patients with OSA should be defined within a numerical scheme that demonstrates a finite and progressive gradient from low need to high need.

Equal sensitivity: should demonstrate equal sensitivity throughout the scale.

Clinical importance: the numerical scale should correspond with the clinically appraised orthodontic treatment need of paediatric patients with OSA.

Statistical ease: should be amendable to statistical analysis.

Reliability: should have a high intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.

Practical: the instruments required to score the index should be practical to the setting in which it will be administered.

Minimal judgement: applying the index should require minimal judgement.

Simple: the index should not have a high financial or time cost, and thereby should be simple enough to administer to many patients.

Detect change: The index should be able to detect changes in orthodontic treatment need in paediatric patients with OSA.

Validity: should be valid over time.

…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The WHO provided an excellent starting point; from there modifications were made to cater to the specifics of this study, given that there are differences between developing a guideline and an index for orthodontic treatment need. The literature was useful, and among the index development protocols reviewed, some assessed the orthodontic treatment need within the entire population,37–40 while others assessed it for a given subpopulation41–46; each had strengths and weaknesses, and thus we further modified our methods, synthesising a protocol for our particular needs from the available literature and using the experience and expertise of the authors. Through this protocol we aim to develop an index that fulfils all of the following criteria47:

Gradient of numeric values: the severity of the orthodontic treatment need within the paediatric patients with OSA should be defined within a numerical scheme that demonstrates a finite and progressive gradient from low need to high need.

Equal sensitivity: should demonstrate equal sensitivity throughout the scale.

Clinical importance: the numerical scale should correspond with the clinically appraised orthodontic treatment need of paediatric patients with OSA.

Statistical ease: should be amendable to statistical analysis.

Reliability: should have a high intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.

Practical: the instruments required to score the index should be practical to the setting in which it will be administered.

Minimal judgement: applying the index should require minimal judgement.

Simple: the index should not have a high financial or time cost, and thereby should be simple enough to administer to many patients.

Detect change: The index should be able to detect changes in orthodontic treatment need in paediatric patients with OSA.

Validity: should be valid over time.

…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Goslon yardstick is useful for longitudinal assessment, the original 10-year-old yardstick should be modified to provide better prediction of future outcome for 5-year-old children. Mars and coworkers [23] suggest that Goslon 3 should be rated as Goslon 2 and Goslon 4 as Goslon 3 since the edge-to-edge bite is normal in a 5-year-old and the lingual eruption of the mandibular permanent incisors to their predecessors. In this study, we did not modify the Goslon yardstick in this way.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Para Mars et al (2006), o índice de Goslon é uma importante ferramenta com alto grau de confiabilidade e reprodutibilidade na avaliação, em longo prazo, da influência das cirurgias primárias no crescimento dos arcos dentários. A aplicação do índice é fácil e não requer equipamentos especializados.…”
Section: Goslon 4+5 (% )unclassified