CAJ | 학술논문

目的分析多名正畸专家对正畸治疗后各种临床资料主观评判结果,深入探讨各种单一资料的相关性及其在组合评价中所占比重,以期为正畸疗效客观评价指标的建立提供参考.方法以院校和安氏分类作为随机抽样的分层因素,利用计算机产生的伪随机数表,从全国6个口腔医学院校正畸科近5年完成的2383例病例中,随机抽取108例作为样本.将样本治疗后模型、头颅侧位X线片和面像作为研究资料,以安氏分类作为随机分组的分层因素,采用计算机产生的伪随机数表将108例病例随机等分为9组.从全国各地邀请正畸专家69名,依据治疗后的各项临床资料或多项资料组合,对每组12例病例的疗效满意度进行排序,并对疗效进行满意和合格判断.结果相关性方面:模型+头颅侧位X线片(M+C)和模型+面像(M+P)的结果与模型+头颅侧位X线片+面像(M+C+P)结果的相关系数＞0.950.单独评价M与单独评价P、C的相关系数均为0.300左右；单独评价P和单独评价C的相关系数为0.505.权重方面:建立单一资料与组合资料评判结果的回归模型如下:M +C =0.782M +0.308C -0.150,M+P =0.804M +0.233P-0.091,M+C +P=0.764M+0.243P +0.131C-0.291.3个模型的r2均＞0.9.结论进行正畸疗效评价时,纳入头颅侧位X线片和面像是必要的,采用结合各种单一资料的评判手段能有效地反映组合资料的评判结果,模型与头颅侧位X线片或模型与面像的组合均可全面反映3种资料组合判断的结果.
목적 분석다명정기전가대정기치료후각충림상자료주관평판결과,심입탐토각충단일자료적상관성급기재조합평개중소점비중,이기위정기료효객관평개지표적건립제공삼고.방법 이원교화안씨분류작위수궤추양적분층인소,이용계산궤산생적위수궤수표,종전국6개구강의학원교정기과근5년완성적2383례병례중,수궤추취108례작위양본.장양본치료후모형、두로측위X선편화면상작위연구자료,이안씨분류작위수궤분조적분층인소,채용계산궤산생적위수궤수표장108례병례수궤등분위9조.종전국각지요청정기전가69명,의거치료후적각항림상자료혹다항자료조합,대매조12례병례적료효만의도진행배서,병대료효진행만의화합격판단.결과 상관성방면:모형+두로측위X선편(M+C)화모형+면상(M+P)적결과여모형+두로측위X선편+면상(M+C+P)결과적상관계수＞0.950.단독평개M여단독평개P、C적상관계수균위0.300좌우；단독평개P화단독평개C적상관계수위0.505.권중방면:건립단일자료여조합자료평판결과적회귀모형여하:M +C =0.782M +0.308C -0.150,M+P =0.804M +0.233P-0.091,M+C +P=0.764M+0.243P +0.131C-0.291.3개모형적r2균＞0.9.결론 진행정기료효평개시,납입두로측위X선편화면상시필요적,채용결합각충단일자료적평판수단능유효지반영조합자료적평판결과,모형여두로측위X선편혹모형여면상적조합균가전면반영3충자료조합판단적결과.
Objective To analyze the results of multiple Chinese orthodontic specialists' subjective evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome,to investigate the relevance of different experiment items and to explore the weight of each monomial material.Methods As a randomized clinical trial,with six orthodontic treatment centers and Angle's classification being regarded as two stratification factors,it contained 108 cases with integrity data,which was random extracted from 2383 cases that received orthodontic treatment in six orthodontic treatment centers during the past five years, gathering post-treatment study casts,cephalometrics and photographs of 48 cases as the research subject.Similarly taking Angle's classification as a stratification factor,108 cases were randomly divided into 9 groups.The randomization of sampling and grouping were both generated by a pseudo-random number generator. According to the monomial and combined subjects,69 orthodontic specialists were regarded as the raters to rank the 12 cases in each group,and to judge whether the case was qualified. Results Correlation analysis:the Spearman r between Post-M + C and Post-M + C + P and the Spearman r between Post-M + P and Post-M + C + P were both greater than 0.950.The Spearman r between Post-M and Post-P and the Spearman r between Post-M and Post-C were about 0.300.The Spearman r between Post-P and Post-C was 0.505.Regression analysis:the linear regression results:M + C =0.782M +0.308C -0.150,M + P =0.804M +0.233P -0.091,M + C +P =0.764M +0.243P +0.131C -0.291.The r2 of above three models was greater than 0.9.Conclusions It was applicable to use M + C and M + P instead of M + C + P.Study casts could not replace cephalometrics or photographs when doing subjective evaluation. Cephalometrics and photographs could not substitute for each other either.In the combined materials evaluation,model accounted for the largest percentage.Based on the regression model,for the greater part,the integration of several monomial materials could replace the combined material assessment effectively.